5 ms·

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). Th

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]

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]