9 ms·

Is Economics a Science?

20 points by cs702 13y ago

nathan_long 13y ago
I'd say that if it isn't a system of discovering truth by repeatable experiments, it isn't a science. Ergo, economics isn't (at least not on a macro scale). That doesn't make it invalid. There are other ways to discover truth; eg, reasoning, mathematical proof, or detective work. The latter applies the knowledge gained from science, but the crime itself isn't repeatable. Then again, given how divided economists are on basic questions, there must be a lot of blarney in the field.
- tristanz 13y ago
  Astronomy and cosmology are not science?
- jljljl 13y ago
  There are fields in economics (e.g., behavioral) that attempts to produce insights and theories through repeatable, controlled experiments. The assumption that no scientific testing or experimentation happens in econ is overgeneralizing. I actually don't think repeatable experiments is a necessary characteristic of science. I would argue that science is more about generating falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested through some method, whether through repeatable experimentation or through observation (what you call detective work).
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - jljljl 13y ago
      >> Unless you consider running regressions on historical data falsification? You can make predictions about how policies or exogenous shocks will effect demand/supply/GDP, and then see how things play out in the real world. For example: People can claim that quantitative easing will lead to heightened inflation in X years. This claim can then be observed, tested, and falsified.
      - nathan_long 13y ago
        Good point. But: >> People can claim that quantitative easing will lead to heightened inflation in X years. This claim can then be observed, tested, and falsified. ...which is useful if you can create models that repeatedly make correct predictions.
- zurn 13y ago
  Is it really useful to strictly guard the word "science" to only apply to natural sciences? Linguistics, history, economics, climatology etc are all able to usefully apply empiricism along with other methods. You can just say natural science when you mean it specifically.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  > Then again, given how divided economists are on basic questions, there must be a lot of blarney in the field. There really isn't that much disagreement. Just alot of pundits masquerading as economists (who may have an undergrad degree) who use 'economics' to justify their absurd political idealism. If you ask economists who actually make a difference (central bank economists, investment bank strategists), and make decisions that actually affect people, I bet there'd be alot more agreement.
  - jljljl 13y ago
    There are divisions between some major economic theorists who aren't just pundits. For example, read some of the disagreements between Nobel Prize Winners like Robert Lucas and Paul Krugman. Of course, disagreement in a field has nothing to do with the validity or science like nature of the field itself. Consider, for example, the disagreements between Gould and Dawkins in the field of biology. Does this mean biology is not a science?
    - Mikeb85 13y ago
      I never said there are no disagreements, only that they are less extreme than critics of economics would have us believe. While Krugman and Lucas seem to have some sort of personal beef, their 'philosophies' aren't that far off (Old Keynesian vs. New Keynesian economics) when you consider disagreements in other fields... I'm also sure that you'd find even more agreement between say, Ben Bernanke and Mark Carney.
- mlyang 13y ago
  Research institutions like the MIT Povery Action Lab try to make economics research as experimentally rigorous as other research -- but I think even this fails to make economics a true science. Economics is concerned principally with correlations that have no reason to be universally and timelessly true-- just a snapshot of current (and transient) social phenomenon and the corresponding correlations within that snapshot. Correlations (and policy efficacies) that are found fundamentally rest on shifting psychological, social, cultural, and political trends. Physics, on the other hand, even in correlative experiments aims to find relationships that are timelessly and fundamentally true-- and provide the foundation for other scientists to discover what those fundamental truths are that drive this correlation. Such truths don't exist in economics.
  - tanzam75 13y ago
    So then, by this logic, most social sciences aren't sciences. A lot of psychology, for example, rests on experiments run on 19-year old college sophomores in Western countries. Are these actually universal human traits, or do they change depending on cultural trends?
    - st0neage 13y ago
      > So then, by this logic, most social sciences aren't sciences. True.
- ysn77 13y ago
  So climate change is not a science, huh? Theory of evolution isn't either?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Theodores 13y ago
The "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" came along in 1968, therefore it is not a 'real' Nobel Prize. As for the question, Betteridge's law applies: "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
- chmullig 13y ago
  Any headline which ends in a question mark can also be answered by the word yes. Whether either is correct is another matter entirely.
  - otikik 13y ago
    It can also be answered by the word "tnetennba". The point of the previous observation is that the correct answer is "no". Basically because putting something preposterous in an interrogative way in the header is a very easy way of link-baiting.
- jljljl 13y ago
  >>> The "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" came along in 1968, therefore it is not a 'real' Nobel Prize. People keep saying this like it's some profound insight or knock against economics. The Nobel Memorial Prize is still one of the highest possible awards in the field. It doesn't diminish Schiller's standing just because it wasn't one of the original Nobel Prizes. It's sort of like pointing out that "Best Animated Feature" is not a real Oscar because they only started awarding it in 2001.
  - Theodores 13y ago
    To people that hate Chicago School Economics and know a little bit about how the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" came in to being, it will always lack legitimacy. Just because you don't like, know or accept that doesn't mean you have to imagine it is any different. Your analogy with the Oscars is spurious. If Nobel wanted a prize in economics, tiddlywinks, synchronised swimming, aromatherapy or anything else he probably would have mentioned it in his will. Economics existed in the days before he popped his clogs so he could have had a prize for it if he wanted, but he didn't. Sometimes you have got to respect a man's will, not twist it into something it isn't. That is dishonourable. As for the Oscars, technology changes and the "Best Animated Feature" award is there to recognise those CGI extravaganzas - nobody can really argue with that. They haven't branched out and given an extra Oscar for "Best Economist in a Government Think Tank" or anything weird like that, have they? Allegedly members of the Nobel family have called for the joke that is the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" to be stopped, I guess they have had a bit longer to think about it than you have.
ThomPete 13y ago
No economics belong to the field of social science (neither a science).
atmosx 13y ago
Can anyone give me a fair example of something positive produced of of economics? Some sort of phenomenon we didn't understand before? If it's a science, which is ridiculous to believe so, what good has done to the human kind? Competing chemistry and physics or engineering to math is hilarious. The logistics of a large magazine can be easily handled by someone who has never has no idea about "economics". Would trust a non-architect to build you a house? Or a physician who has no idea about chemistry? A cryptographer that doesn't know what a prime is? Blah...
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  The effects of welfare and various forms of economic stimuli? The effects of international trade, currency and central bank policies? And of course, large investment banks derive alot of benefit from the study of economics. Was just listening to Abby Joseph Cohen on Bloomberg radio yesterday - she's an economist and a senior investment strategist at Goldman Sachs - they obviously make alot of money through understanding economics and making correct predictions. While you can argue about the benefit to society, it's clear that economics can produce prediction models that work.
  - dalai 13y ago
    Do they actually have prediction models that work? Goldman Sachs is not an outside observer. Every time they make a public prediction they are also affecting the outcome. The same goes for several well-known economists. Even if the prediction is not public, Goldman Sachs is quite capable of influencing a lot of people to get the outcome it wants.
    - Mikeb85 13y ago
      > Do they actually have prediction models that work? The proof is in the proverbial pudding - they trade on their prediction models, and make money.
      - mrow84 13y ago
        Your claimed proof ignores dalai's point: that Goldman Sachs' predictions affect the system they are making 'predictions' about. If I predict you are going to get a nosebleed, and then punch you in the face, it's a bit disingenuous for me to claim that I have gained insight into the general causes of nosebleeds, isn't it?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dreamdu5t 13y ago
No, economics isn't a science. It cannot discover truth using repeatable experiments. Economics is statistics mixed with political philosophy. Usually political philosophy using statistical regressions on historical data to advance their political claim.
- jljljl 13y ago
  >>It cannot discover truth using repeatable experiments. Behavioral Economics is a field that attempts to do exactly this. Additionally, repeatable experiments is one method of falsifying claims, but it is not the only method. Observational studies and prediction testing can serve as a means to falsify claims.
Tycho 13y ago
Economics may not ever become a science. But is science becoming economics?
nfoz 13y ago
Anyone have a link to a scientific economic paper?
- grimtrigger 13y ago
  Is this a joke? http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1752366 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1752366
  - nfoz 13y ago
    Nope, that's great, thanks. Here we plainly see game-theory science being conducted in the name of economics. If this is considered an economic paper, then economics indeed can be considered a science. (Of course not all economists are scientists, and not everything an economic scientist says is a scientific result or conclusion, but these disclaimers shouldn't be necessary.)
    - atmosx 13y ago
      NO it's not. Repeat the same experiment using Italian or Greek or African or Chinese or Japanese students. See if you get the same results in conditions parity and then we can start discussing about it.
skwirl 13y ago
If you were to claim economics is not science because it rarely involves repeatable experiments, you would have to throw out a large chunk of what we commonly think of as science. Did we discover that the moon orbits the earth with repeatable experiments? Did we discover black holes, the existence of dinosaurs, the big bang, the causes of earthquakes, the causes of volcanoes, the cause of hurricanes, etc. with repeatable experiments? Do you want to throw all that out as nonscientific nonsense? It took us a long time to discover such basic things as the fact that the Earth goes around the sun despite the fact that people had been trying to figure it out for millenia. For much of that time, research was hampered by politics and the unwillingness of people to accept the consequences of possibilities beyond what was widely held as true, some of the same problems pinned by many on economics today. Economics is a discipline that is really in its infancy. Like astronomy, it is going to rely on observation much more than experimentation. Like astronomy, it is still a science, and like astronomy, it always has been and always will be, even if we draw inconclusive, politically tainted, or wrong conclusions today.
- ThomPete 13y ago
  Of course you would and we should throw all those who are not proper sciences out. Come up with a new name as to not confuse and miss use. It belongs to sociology, psychology, anthropology and so on. Noting to be ashamed about but lets just call a spade a spade.
- mgraczyk 13y ago
  All of those discoveries you listed were originally confirmed with repeatable experiments. In fact the the existence of black holes and the occurrence of the big bang were only hypothesized as explanations for the results of other repeatable scientific experiments. It wasn't hard for Galileo to show that the earth orbits the sun. His methods and results would still be acceptable to the scientific community if he did the experiments today. Just because the public didn't accept his work did not make it any less scientifically valid.
  - kbenson 13y ago
    I think what you mean is they were eventually confirmed by repeatable experiments )even if eventually was shortly after the theory in some cases). Science begins with theory. It's appropriate to criticize people presenting theories as likely without evidence, but it's important to distinguish theory that is intended to be tested, but just can't or hasn't been yet from that which doesn't really expect to be tested.
st0neage 13y ago
There is no Nobel prize in economics.
- dbecker 13y ago
  What do you call the thing described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economi...
  - st0neage 13y ago
    Fraud. "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" It is not a Nobel Prize. It's deliberately misnamed to make it look like it is.
steauengeglase 13y ago
Most fields within economics fall within social science, not natural science. That doesn't make a non-science, but like psychology there is a lot of weak ground for shills and hacks to cause major damage. I'd rather know Shiller's ideas on how to throw out the bad ideas in the public consciousness than if his field of study will make it in the long term. Policy is too often treated more like a religion than an implementation of tested ideas.
- grimtrigger 13y ago
  Prediction markets offer a possible solution.
- mrow84 13y ago
  I agree with this analysis. One way to characterise the problem is as a lack of verifiability, which, interestingly, has been much touted recently as a problem in science more generally. I think that the verifiability problem in economics is, however, more pernicious than that for other sciences precisely because of the subject area which it addresses, namely the economy. The standard of evidence for the implementation of some economic policy is, quite generally speaking, vastly lower than for the application of other scientific advances, and the impacts of either can be large. This means that unverified or even unverifiable policies can quite easily be implemented in the real world, and then cause significant damage, as steauengeglase mentioned. If we are incapable of verifying that a given policy might work, because the theory it is derived from is so incomplete as to ignore the things which might cause the policy to fail, then why should we consider that policy's adoption? It is surely far more sensible to generally apply well-tested ideas, and conduct small-scale policy trials to expand our knowledge. The obvious problem with this latter approach is that the "well-tested ideas" are very often derived from distinctly inequitable modes of thinking. I would still contend that adopting and then adapting those ideas is preferable to applying radical ideas that ignore most of the system they purport to explain.
ffrryuu 13y ago
It is just an attempt to justify our unjust system, it is definitely not an science.
Fando 13y ago
What a pointless argument. It is clear that economics is both a science and not a science. Yes, it has overlapping parts with other sciences, but also parts which are unique to it, such as the human element, which make it difficult to fit into the category. But such fitting is not what matters. Let's move on to the real issue. That economics is difficult, which makes a large part of its application ambiguous, vague, subjective, hard to test, and etc. Through these properties, which are not prevalent in other scientific fields, economics lends itself nicely to exploitation by the natural human flaws. These flaws have to do with subjectivity which arise as a result of ambiguity and lack of fundamental understanding. For this reason, I consider economics to be a much more difficult field than other, more scientific fields. Of course, but what's next. How do we evolve the field to be more useful. How do we begin understanding it intrinsically. I don't know. But it would probably include a fundamental innovation in the scientific method itself which accounts for the human flaw to exploit ambiguity. But perhaps not. Perhaps it would eventually be ousted like an idea and replaced by a better hypothesis and working model.
moocowduckquack 13y ago
The defense of economics by comparing it to string theory is a novel one, however last time I checked nobody has tried to impose the conclusions of string theory on a population, so the consequences of playing with maths in that field are much less severe (edit - unless the playing with maths proves successful, in which case all bets are off).
atmosx 13y ago
The most famous British political satire TV-series is "Yes Prime Minister"[1]. Believe the IMDB 8.2 doesn't make justice to this masterpiece which most often than not proved to be spot-on about how matters of the state are approached by politicians. Here is a snippet from Episode 1, season 2: ---------------- Late in the evening PM at home. Bernard, PM’s personal secretary, enters the room: PM: All the cabinets have got to make cuts in their spending plans. PM’s wife: Bernard would you like a scotch? Bernard: Yes, I can have a large one please! PM’s wife: Another triple! PM: Humphrey should have seen this coming and warn me. Bernard: I don’t think Sir Humphrey understand economics prime minister. He did read the classics you know. PM: Well that’s the thing. He is head of the treasury. Bernard: Well prime minister, I’m afraid he is in even greater disadvantage understanding economics. He is an economist. ---------------- I never heard of a more accurate description of an economist. [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086831/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086831/
X4 13y ago
It is a meta-science. Not a nature science. I think that's it. Yes it's still a science. The reason it's not thought really scientifically is a different problem, common to this field.

20 points by cs702 13y ago

I'd say that if it isn't a system of discovering truth by repeatable experiments, it isn't a science. Ergo, economics isn't (at least not on a macro scale). That doesn't make it invalid. There are other ways to discover truth; eg, reasoning, mathematical proof, or detective work. The latter applies the knowledge gained from science, but the crime itself isn't repeatable. Then again, given how divided economists are on basic questions, there must be a lot of blarney in the field.

tristanz 13y ago
Astronomy and cosmology are not science?
jljljl 13y ago
There are fields in economics (e.g., behavioral) that attempts to produce insights and theories through repeatable, controlled experiments. The assumption that no scientific testing or experimentation happens in econ is overgeneralizing. I actually don't think repeatable experiments is a necessary characteristic of science. I would argue that science is more about generating falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested through some method, whether through repeatable experimentation or through observation (what you call detective work).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - jljljl 13y ago
    >> Unless you consider running regressions on historical data falsification? You can make predictions about how policies or exogenous shocks will effect demand/supply/GDP, and then see how things play out in the real world. For example: People can claim that quantitative easing will lead to heightened inflation in X years. This claim can then be observed, tested, and falsified.
    - nathan_long 13y ago
      Good point. But: >> People can claim that quantitative easing will lead to heightened inflation in X years. This claim can then be observed, tested, and falsified. ...which is useful if you can create models that repeatedly make correct predictions.
zurn 13y ago
Is it really useful to strictly guard the word "science" to only apply to natural sciences? Linguistics, history, economics, climatology etc are all able to usefully apply empiricism along with other methods. You can just say natural science when you mean it specifically.
Mikeb85 13y ago
> Then again, given how divided economists are on basic questions, there must be a lot of blarney in the field. There really isn't that much disagreement. Just alot of pundits masquerading as economists (who may have an undergrad degree) who use 'economics' to justify their absurd political idealism. If you ask economists who actually make a difference (central bank economists, investment bank strategists), and make decisions that actually affect people, I bet there'd be alot more agreement.
- jljljl 13y ago
  There are divisions between some major economic theorists who aren't just pundits. For example, read some of the disagreements between Nobel Prize Winners like Robert Lucas and Paul Krugman. Of course, disagreement in a field has nothing to do with the validity or science like nature of the field itself. Consider, for example, the disagreements between Gould and Dawkins in the field of biology. Does this mean biology is not a science?
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    I never said there are no disagreements, only that they are less extreme than critics of economics would have us believe. While Krugman and Lucas seem to have some sort of personal beef, their 'philosophies' aren't that far off (Old Keynesian vs. New Keynesian economics) when you consider disagreements in other fields... I'm also sure that you'd find even more agreement between say, Ben Bernanke and Mark Carney.
mlyang 13y ago
Research institutions like the MIT Povery Action Lab try to make economics research as experimentally rigorous as other research -- but I think even this fails to make economics a true science. Economics is concerned principally with correlations that have no reason to be universally and timelessly true-- just a snapshot of current (and transient) social phenomenon and the corresponding correlations within that snapshot. Correlations (and policy efficacies) that are found fundamentally rest on shifting psychological, social, cultural, and political trends. Physics, on the other hand, even in correlative experiments aims to find relationships that are timelessly and fundamentally true-- and provide the foundation for other scientists to discover what those fundamental truths are that drive this correlation. Such truths don't exist in economics.
- tanzam75 13y ago
  So then, by this logic, most social sciences aren't sciences. A lot of psychology, for example, rests on experiments run on 19-year old college sophomores in Western countries. Are these actually universal human traits, or do they change depending on cultural trends?
  - st0neage 13y ago
    > So then, by this logic, most social sciences aren't sciences. True.
ysn77 13y ago
So climate change is not a science, huh? Theory of evolution isn't either?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Theodores 13y ago

The "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" came along in 1968, therefore it is not a 'real' Nobel Prize. As for the question, Betteridge's law applies: "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

chmullig 13y ago
Any headline which ends in a question mark can also be answered by the word yes. Whether either is correct is another matter entirely.
- otikik 13y ago
  It can also be answered by the word "tnetennba". The point of the previous observation is that the correct answer is "no". Basically because putting something preposterous in an interrogative way in the header is a very easy way of link-baiting.
jljljl 13y ago
>>> The "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" came along in 1968, therefore it is not a 'real' Nobel Prize. People keep saying this like it's some profound insight or knock against economics. The Nobel Memorial Prize is still one of the highest possible awards in the field. It doesn't diminish Schiller's standing just because it wasn't one of the original Nobel Prizes. It's sort of like pointing out that "Best Animated Feature" is not a real Oscar because they only started awarding it in 2001.
- Theodores 13y ago
  To people that hate Chicago School Economics and know a little bit about how the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" came in to being, it will always lack legitimacy. Just because you don't like, know or accept that doesn't mean you have to imagine it is any different. Your analogy with the Oscars is spurious. If Nobel wanted a prize in economics, tiddlywinks, synchronised swimming, aromatherapy or anything else he probably would have mentioned it in his will. Economics existed in the days before he popped his clogs so he could have had a prize for it if he wanted, but he didn't. Sometimes you have got to respect a man's will, not twist it into something it isn't. That is dishonourable. As for the Oscars, technology changes and the "Best Animated Feature" award is there to recognise those CGI extravaganzas - nobody can really argue with that. They haven't branched out and given an extra Oscar for "Best Economist in a Government Think Tank" or anything weird like that, have they? Allegedly members of the Nobel family have called for the joke that is the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" to be stopped, I guess they have had a bit longer to think about it than you have.

ThomPete 13y ago

No economics belong to the field of social science (neither a science).

atmosx 13y ago

Can anyone give me a fair example of something positive produced of of economics? Some sort of phenomenon we didn't understand before? If it's a science, which is ridiculous to believe so, what good has done to the human kind? Competing chemistry and physics or engineering to math is hilarious. The logistics of a large magazine can be easily handled by someone who has never has no idea about "economics". Would trust a non-architect to build you a house? Or a physician who has no idea about chemistry? A cryptographer that doesn't know what a prime is? Blah...

Mikeb85 13y ago
The effects of welfare and various forms of economic stimuli? The effects of international trade, currency and central bank policies? And of course, large investment banks derive alot of benefit from the study of economics. Was just listening to Abby Joseph Cohen on Bloomberg radio yesterday - she's an economist and a senior investment strategist at Goldman Sachs - they obviously make alot of money through understanding economics and making correct predictions. While you can argue about the benefit to society, it's clear that economics can produce prediction models that work.
- dalai 13y ago
  Do they actually have prediction models that work? Goldman Sachs is not an outside observer. Every time they make a public prediction they are also affecting the outcome. The same goes for several well-known economists. Even if the prediction is not public, Goldman Sachs is quite capable of influencing a lot of people to get the outcome it wants.
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    > Do they actually have prediction models that work? The proof is in the proverbial pudding - they trade on their prediction models, and make money.
    - mrow84 13y ago
      Your claimed proof ignores dalai's point: that Goldman Sachs' predictions affect the system they are making 'predictions' about. If I predict you are going to get a nosebleed, and then punch you in the face, it's a bit disingenuous for me to claim that I have gained insight into the general causes of nosebleeds, isn't it?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dreamdu5t 13y ago

No, economics isn't a science. It cannot discover truth using repeatable experiments. Economics is statistics mixed with political philosophy. Usually political philosophy using statistical regressions on historical data to advance their political claim.

jljljl 13y ago
>>It cannot discover truth using repeatable experiments. Behavioral Economics is a field that attempts to do exactly this. Additionally, repeatable experiments is one method of falsifying claims, but it is not the only method. Observational studies and prediction testing can serve as a means to falsify claims.

Tycho 13y ago

Economics may not ever become a science. But is science becoming economics?

nfoz 13y ago

Anyone have a link to a scientific economic paper?

grimtrigger 13y ago
Is this a joke? http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1752366 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1752366
- nfoz 13y ago
  Nope, that's great, thanks. Here we plainly see game-theory science being conducted in the name of economics. If this is considered an economic paper, then economics indeed can be considered a science. (Of course not all economists are scientists, and not everything an economic scientist says is a scientific result or conclusion, but these disclaimers shouldn't be necessary.)
  - atmosx 13y ago
    NO it's not. Repeat the same experiment using Italian or Greek or African or Chinese or Japanese students. See if you get the same results in conditions parity and then we can start discussing about it.

skwirl 13y ago

If you were to claim economics is not science because it rarely involves repeatable experiments, you would have to throw out a large chunk of what we commonly think of as science. Did we discover that the moon orbits the earth with repeatable experiments? Did we discover black holes, the existence of dinosaurs, the big bang, the causes of earthquakes, the causes of volcanoes, the cause of hurricanes, etc. with repeatable experiments? Do you want to throw all that out as nonscientific nonsense? It took us a long time to discover such basic things as the fact that the Earth goes around the sun despite the fact that people had been trying to figure it out for millenia. For much of that time, research was hampered by politics and the unwillingness of people to accept the consequences of possibilities beyond what was widely held as true, some of the same problems pinned by many on economics today. Economics is a discipline that is really in its infancy. Like astronomy, it is going to rely on observation much more than experimentation. Like astronomy, it is still a science, and like astronomy, it always has been and always will be, even if we draw inconclusive, politically tainted, or wrong conclusions today.

ThomPete 13y ago
Of course you would and we should throw all those who are not proper sciences out. Come up with a new name as to not confuse and miss use. It belongs to sociology, psychology, anthropology and so on. Noting to be ashamed about but lets just call a spade a spade.
mgraczyk 13y ago
All of those discoveries you listed were originally confirmed with repeatable experiments. In fact the the existence of black holes and the occurrence of the big bang were only hypothesized as explanations for the results of other repeatable scientific experiments. It wasn't hard for Galileo to show that the earth orbits the sun. His methods and results would still be acceptable to the scientific community if he did the experiments today. Just because the public didn't accept his work did not make it any less scientifically valid.
- kbenson 13y ago
  I think what you mean is they were eventually confirmed by repeatable experiments )even if eventually was shortly after the theory in some cases). Science begins with theory. It's appropriate to criticize people presenting theories as likely without evidence, but it's important to distinguish theory that is intended to be tested, but just can't or hasn't been yet from that which doesn't really expect to be tested.

st0neage 13y ago

There is no Nobel prize in economics.

dbecker 13y ago
What do you call the thing described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economi...
- st0neage 13y ago
  Fraud. "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" It is not a Nobel Prize. It's deliberately misnamed to make it look like it is.

steauengeglase 13y ago

Most fields within economics fall within social science, not natural science. That doesn't make a non-science, but like psychology there is a lot of weak ground for shills and hacks to cause major damage. I'd rather know Shiller's ideas on how to throw out the bad ideas in the public consciousness than if his field of study will make it in the long term. Policy is too often treated more like a religion than an implementation of tested ideas.

grimtrigger 13y ago
Prediction markets offer a possible solution.
mrow84 13y ago
I agree with this analysis. One way to characterise the problem is as a lack of verifiability, which, interestingly, has been much touted recently as a problem in science more generally. I think that the verifiability problem in economics is, however, more pernicious than that for other sciences precisely because of the subject area which it addresses, namely the economy. The standard of evidence for the implementation of some economic policy is, quite generally speaking, vastly lower than for the application of other scientific advances, and the impacts of either can be large. This means that unverified or even unverifiable policies can quite easily be implemented in the real world, and then cause significant damage, as steauengeglase mentioned. If we are incapable of verifying that a given policy might work, because the theory it is derived from is so incomplete as to ignore the things which might cause the policy to fail, then why should we consider that policy's adoption? It is surely far more sensible to generally apply well-tested ideas, and conduct small-scale policy trials to expand our knowledge. The obvious problem with this latter approach is that the "well-tested ideas" are very often derived from distinctly inequitable modes of thinking. I would still contend that adopting and then adapting those ideas is preferable to applying radical ideas that ignore most of the system they purport to explain.

ffrryuu 13y ago

It is just an attempt to justify our unjust system, it is definitely not an science.

Fando 13y ago

What a pointless argument. It is clear that economics is both a science and not a science. Yes, it has overlapping parts with other sciences, but also parts which are unique to it, such as the human element, which make it difficult to fit into the category. But such fitting is not what matters. Let's move on to the real issue. That economics is difficult, which makes a large part of its application ambiguous, vague, subjective, hard to test, and etc. Through these properties, which are not prevalent in other scientific fields, economics lends itself nicely to exploitation by the natural human flaws. These flaws have to do with subjectivity which arise as a result of ambiguity and lack of fundamental understanding. For this reason, I consider economics to be a much more difficult field than other, more scientific fields. Of course, but what's next. How do we evolve the field to be more useful. How do we begin understanding it intrinsically. I don't know. But it would probably include a fundamental innovation in the scientific method itself which accounts for the human flaw to exploit ambiguity. But perhaps not. Perhaps it would eventually be ousted like an idea and replaced by a better hypothesis and working model.

moocowduckquack 13y ago

The defense of economics by comparing it to string theory is a novel one, however last time I checked nobody has tried to impose the conclusions of string theory on a population, so the consequences of playing with maths in that field are much less severe (edit - unless the playing with maths proves successful, in which case all bets are off).

atmosx 13y ago

The most famous British political satire TV-series is "Yes Prime Minister"[1]. Believe the IMDB 8.2 doesn't make justice to this masterpiece which most often than not proved to be spot-on about how matters of the state are approached by politicians. Here is a snippet from Episode 1, season 2: ---------------- Late in the evening PM at home. Bernard, PM’s personal secretary, enters the room: PM: All the cabinets have got to make cuts in their spending plans. PM’s wife: Bernard would you like a scotch? Bernard: Yes, I can have a large one please! PM’s wife: Another triple! PM: Humphrey should have seen this coming and warn me. Bernard: I don’t think Sir Humphrey understand economics prime minister. He did read the classics you know. PM: Well that’s the thing. He is head of the treasury. Bernard: Well prime minister, I’m afraid he is in even greater disadvantage understanding economics. He is an economist. ---------------- I never heard of a more accurate description of an economist. [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086831/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086831/

X4 13y ago

It is a meta-science. Not a nature science. I think that's it. Yes it's still a science. The reason it's not thought really scientifically is a different problem, common to this field.