2 ms·

The problem is lots of economists at least seem to think that what makes something a science is "using math" rather than "validating or disproving theories via

The problem is lots of economists at least seem to think that what makes something a science is "using math" rather than "validating or disproving theories via observation". I've even seen people sneer "mere heuristics" at suggestions to try that...

addcommitpush 3y ago
It's quite surprising because ever since the "credibility revolution" [0], a major critique of economics is that it focuses too much on issues that are well suited to "validating via observation" as you call it, rather than issues that are actually important. For instance, more looking at the effect of soccer victories on inter-ethnic trust [1], fewer grand theories of development. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility_revolution [1] https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v110y2020i5p1572-1602.html https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v110y2020i5p1572-1602.h...
SantalBlush 3y ago
>seem to think that what makes something a science is "using math" rather than "validating or disproving theories via observation". The economic literature abounds in observational studies that test economic theories. What are you basing your statement on?