4 ms·

There are also no ways to run experiments in cosmology.

• mochomocha 8y ago
  The difference is that you don't try to act on the cosmology models to change the way galaxies behave. Most of practical economics tries to derive policies or make choices out of its models.
  • ucaetano 8y ago
    No, you don't. But having the complex macroeconomics models far beats relying on layman's guesswork. You've never looked at a macroeconomics model, have you? Economics is complicated because it is modeling the behavior of human beings. Math is easy, computer science is easy, modeling the collective behavior of humans is hard.
  • Buldak 8y ago
    That's irrelevant as far as the designation of "science" is concerned. This is a question of knowledge and certainty, not practical application. The point is that results in cosmology (and other fields) are very well confirmed despite the fact that they don't come out of strict experimentation. In that same vein, when someone denies that economics is a science I'd argue they're really talking about whether its results are robust, not whether economics uses a certain methodology or is put to certain ends.
• eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  On the contrary, cosmology is based on physics (gravitation, Maxwell equations & so on) and a good bit of chemistry. 99% of the knowledge used in cosmology is based on science science developed and tested "in vitro" on Earth.
  • ucaetano 8y ago
    But you still can't run experiments on cosmology. SO if your definition of "science" is "based on experimental data", cosmology isn't a science.