I agree. 'Science' is either based on quantitative observation, or theory, or experiment that validates theory. Microeconomics largely follows this rubric, bu

I agree. 'Science' is either based on quantitative observation, or theory, or experiment that validates theory. Microeconomics largely follows this rubric, but I would say macroeconomics largely does not. Macro and international econ suffer from the same problems that psychology and sociology do as 'sciences' -- they're studies of very complex systems that are based on too little quantifiable theory that has been rigorously tested. As such it's a stretch to call any discipline that lacks a basis in natural law a science. (IMHO, biology, which also deals in very complex systems, gets a scientific pass because so much of it is based on well tested chemistry and its methods are heavily experimental. (Aside from evolution, that is.) Likewise, cosmology benefits from its well-grounded bases in physics and geology.) But that doesn't mean the study of such complex systems can't or don't employ scientific methods or standards that improve their utility greatly. For example, I'm a big fan of Piaget's work, though I would hesitate to call it science. Such work offers compelling insights, though with little real hope of us seeing farther by standing on the shoulders of giants.