3 ms·

I'm astonished that these questions get asked again and again, about fields that are obviously not sciences. Fields that can and do test their theories against

by lutusp 13y ago

I'm astonished that these questions get asked again and again, about fields that are obviously not sciences. Fields that can and do test their theories against reality in practical, empirical tests, that discard falsified theories, and that have a corpus of supporting evidence that forces all similarly equipped observers to the same conclusion, are sciences. The rest are pseudosciences whose status is clearly shown by innumerable articles whose titles end in a question mark. http://xkcd.com/435/ http://xkcd.com/435/

eru 13y ago
Microeconomics is a science by that definition. Mathematics is not (or not really).
- mike_esspe 13y ago
  Mathematical proofs are falsifiable, and there are a lot of hypotheses, that are not proved yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_m...
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > Mathematical proofs are falsifiable No, they aren't. A mathematical proof is by definition unfalsifiable. If an error is found in a proof (as with Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem), that it isn't a proof ... yet. And mathematical proofs aren't empirical, another requirement for science. Scientific theories are falsifiable in perpetuity because the possibility always exists for new empirical evidence to show up that falsifies an existing theory. This possibility doesn't exist for mathematical proofs.
- mpweiher 13y ago
  I don't think mathematics was ever considered a science. See the definition of the 'liberal arts', which includes science and math as separate entities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education
ronaldx 13y ago
I agree with your definition mostly; however, I disagree with your conclusion. In this sense, economics is a science. Having a corpus of poor quality articles does not exclude you from being a science. Having dissenting groups, and areas where existing evidence permits more than one conclusion, does not exclude you from being a science. Quite the opposite: if there was no dissent, there would be no science.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Having a corpus of poor quality articles does not exclude you from being a science. That's true, but if all that exist are poor-quality articles, then it's not science -- there must be a corpus of testable, falsifiable theories beyond the chaff. This is why psychology isn't a science -- there are lots of poor-quality articles, and there's nothing else. > if there was no dissent, there would be no science. Nonsense. A scientific dissent must be accompanied by evidence, as does the thing being dissented against. Dissent per se means nothing in and of itself.

by lutusp 13y ago

eru 13y ago

Microeconomics is a science by that definition. Mathematics is not (or not really).

mike_esspe 13y ago
Mathematical proofs are falsifiable, and there are a lot of hypotheses, that are not proved yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_m...
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Mathematical proofs are falsifiable No, they aren't. A mathematical proof is by definition unfalsifiable. If an error is found in a proof (as with Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem), that it isn't a proof ... yet. And mathematical proofs aren't empirical, another requirement for science. Scientific theories are falsifiable in perpetuity because the possibility always exists for new empirical evidence to show up that falsifies an existing theory. This possibility doesn't exist for mathematical proofs.
mpweiher 13y ago
I don't think mathematics was ever considered a science. See the definition of the 'liberal arts', which includes science and math as separate entities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education

ronaldx 13y ago

I agree with your definition mostly; however, I disagree with your conclusion. In this sense, economics is a science. Having a corpus of poor quality articles does not exclude you from being a science. Having dissenting groups, and areas where existing evidence permits more than one conclusion, does not exclude you from being a science. Quite the opposite: if there was no dissent, there would be no science.

lutusp 13y ago
> Having a corpus of poor quality articles does not exclude you from being a science. That's true, but if all that exist are poor-quality articles, then it's not science -- there must be a corpus of testable, falsifiable theories beyond the chaff. This is why psychology isn't a science -- there are lots of poor-quality articles, and there's nothing else. > if there was no dissent, there would be no science. Nonsense. A scientific dissent must be accompanied by evidence, as does the thing being dissented against. Dissent per se means nothing in and of itself.