4 ms·

While economics can't be disregarded, modern Keynsian economics bears as much resemblance to science as it does to religion. Its "Laws" are not laws in the sens

While economics can't be disregarded, modern Keynsian economics bears as much resemblance to science as it does to religion. Its "Laws" are not laws in the sense that the Laws of Thermodynamics are laws, and the scientific method is not employed in developing them, because the scientific method is ill-suited to the subject. The issue here is one of vocabulary, but it's an important issue nonetheless. Perhaps if we stop treating calling non-sciences "sciences," the credibility of real science will be improved, and the formerly unassailable opinions of economists will come under more scrutiny. I think that would be a good thing.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
That's true, but Keynesians are just one school of thought. Austrians try to derive their understanding from pure logic; this isn't such a religion, but still isn't directly susceptible to the scientific method. On the other hand, the Chicago school is certainly empirical, and to this extent, theories can (frequently) be investigated for proof or disproof.
- presidentender 17y ago
  I almost agree with you, but assert that "frequently" isn't good enough; the Chicago school's attempt to rely on empirical evidence is necessarily incomplete, just due to the sheer volume of data. That said, I tend to subscribe to the Austrian school, which I believe we can agree does not qualify as a science.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    Actually, I agree with your disagreement :) It's simply not possible for Chicagoans (is that the word?) to test all their ideas. There are plenty of theories for which no real-world data exists, so they must remain as speculation for now. And I'm extremely sympathetic to the Austrian ideas. I love Mises' Human Action (at least the parts of it I've been able to get through so far). At the same time, I must acknowledge that the deeper one goes into such reasoning, the greater the chance for failing to notice that you made an assumption, one that may be wrong. So there's a necessity to get back to a touchstone of the real world occasionally. It may not seem so, but it's easy for pure logic to go astray. Mathematicians pride themselves on logical rigor, but the fact is that many modern-day mathematical proofs are so complex that no one is really sure that they're correct. And I'm dismayed that the Keynesians have been crowing about multipliers of late, when all of our experience during the 70s has shown us fundamental flaws in the Keynesian philosophy (yes, you can easily have high inflation and high employment at the same time!).

CWuestefeld 17y ago

That's true, but Keynesians are just one school of thought. Austrians try to derive their understanding from pure logic; this isn't such a religion, but still isn't directly susceptible to the scientific method. On the other hand, the Chicago school is certainly empirical, and to this extent, theories can (frequently) be investigated for proof or disproof.

presidentender 17y ago
I almost agree with you, but assert that "frequently" isn't good enough; the Chicago school's attempt to rely on empirical evidence is necessarily incomplete, just due to the sheer volume of data. That said, I tend to subscribe to the Austrian school, which I believe we can agree does not qualify as a science.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  Actually, I agree with your disagreement :) It's simply not possible for Chicagoans (is that the word?) to test all their ideas. There are plenty of theories for which no real-world data exists, so they must remain as speculation for now. And I'm extremely sympathetic to the Austrian ideas. I love Mises' Human Action (at least the parts of it I've been able to get through so far). At the same time, I must acknowledge that the deeper one goes into such reasoning, the greater the chance for failing to notice that you made an assumption, one that may be wrong. So there's a necessity to get back to a touchstone of the real world occasionally. It may not seem so, but it's easy for pure logic to go astray. Mathematicians pride themselves on logical rigor, but the fact is that many modern-day mathematical proofs are so complex that no one is really sure that they're correct. And I'm dismayed that the Keynesians have been crowing about multipliers of late, when all of our experience during the 70s has shown us fundamental flaws in the Keynesian philosophy (yes, you can easily have high inflation and high employment at the same time!).