NationStates Jolt Archive

You really don't know anything about economics, do you?

Or do you merely assume based off of a poorly conceived notion of how the study of economics operates, derived from an undergraduate course that you skipped half of the classes and barely pulled a C in?
1. I got an A-
2. I never skip class. I might turn up 20 minutes late, dead drunk, bleeding from a head wound, not having done the homework, and without any of the materials, but I will be there.

Besides which, I'm right. Economics is not a science, because it is not based upon repeatable experimentation. It is an attempt to predict the future and justify the past/present based upon an ideology and the assumption that society and human beings function in a mechanical (though not necessarily rational) manner.
A physicist can say, "There is a natural tendency for objects of mass to attract one another, this force is called gravity and it prevents you from flying just by flapping your arms." He may then pick up a pencil and drop it a few dozen times to prove his point.
An economist, on the other hand, can say, "Protectionism doesn't work." When asked for proof, all he can cite is ideology, incomplete models of human behavior, or cherry pick a few historical occasions which, when viewed in a specific interpretive light, seem to demonstrate flaws within protectionism.

1. I got an A-
2. I never skip class. I might turn up 20 minutes late, dead drunk, bleeding from a head wound, not having done the homework, and without any of the materials, but I will be there.

Besides which, I'm right. Economics is not a science, because it is not based upon repeatable experimentation. It is an attempt to predict the future and justify the past/present based upon an ideology and the assumption that society and human beings function in a mechanical (though not necessarily rational) manner.
A physicist can say, "There is a natural tendency for objects of mass to attract one another, this force is called gravity and it prevents you from flying just by flapping your arms." He may then pick up a pencil and drop it a few dozen times to prove his point.
An economist, on the other hand, can say, "Protectionism doesn't work." When asked for proof, all he site is ideology, incomplete models of human behavior, or cherry pick a few historical occasions which, when viewed in a specific interpretive light, seem to demonstrate flaws within protectionism.

Dude, arent you a philosophy student?

You really don't know anything about economics, do you?
I was going to say something, but this does much better:Economics is not a science, because it is not based upon repeatable experimentation. It is an attempt to predict the future and justify the past/present based upon an ideology and the assumption that society and human beings function in a mechanical (though not necessarily rational) manner.
A physicist can say, "There is a natural tendency for objects of mass to attract one another, this force is called gravity and it prevents you from flying just by flapping your arms." He may then pick up a pencil and drop it a few dozen times to prove his point.
An economist, on the other hand, can say, "Protectionism doesn't work." When asked for proof, all he site is ideology, incomplete models of human behavior, or cherry pick a few historical occasions which, when viewed in a specific interpretive light, seem to demonstrate flaws within protectionism.
Economics, I feel, can be a great tool for describing and analysing what happened in the past, but is a poor, if useless, tool for predicting the future; especially the not-immediate future.

Dude, arent you a philosophy student?
English and Philosophy.
But that's not the same thing, because I have never pretended that my primary interests were actual sciences. I like to read, write and think, so that's what I do. I would never compare myself to a physicist, or imagine that anything I've got to say has the same gravity (heh).

1. I got an A-
2. I never skip class. I might turn up 20 minutes late, dead drunk, bleeding from a head wound, not having done the homework, and without any of the materials, but I will be there.

And I'm Napoleon I *rolleyes*.

Besides which, I'm right.

No, you're idiotically wrong.

Economics is not a science, because it is not based upon repeatable experimentation. It is an attempt to predict the future and justify the past/present based upon an ideology and the assumption that society and human beings function in a mechanical (though not necessarily rational) manner.

Economics is a social science, and you're understanding of how and why it exists is woefully lacking.

A physicist can say, "There is a natural tendency for objects of mass to attract one another, this force is called gravity and it prevents you from flying just by flapping your arms." He may then pick up a pencil and drop it a few dozen times to prove his point.

*cough, cough* Dark Matter *cough, cough*

Physics and economics are not as different as you make them out to be. We look at the effects of properties or actions on a complex system, and try to describe that system. Neither group systemically "cherry picks" data or examples.

An economist, on the other hand, can say, "Protectionism doesn't work." When asked for proof, all he site is ideology, incomplete models of human behavior, or cherry pick a few historical occasions which, when viewed in a specific interpretive light, seem to demonstrate flaws within protectionism.

Your level of ignorance of how an economist does what he or she does is astonishing. There's a significant amount of experimentation,

I was going to say something, but this does much better:

It actually fails miserably.


Economics, I feel, can be a great tool for describing and analysing what happened in the past, but is a poor, if useless, tool for predicting the future; especially the not-immediate future.

Economics is not in the business of predicting the future. It is in the business of describing decision making processes on the micro- and macro-level and helping to suggest appropriate policy solutions to a wide variety of challenges.

But that's not the same thing, because I have never pretended that my primary interests were actual sciences. I like to read, write and think, so that's what I do. I would never compare myself to a physicist, or imagine that anything I've got to say has the same gravity (heh).

That's because English and Philosophy are not even remotely descriptive disciplines.

Further, I think you're confusing economics with your own major, philosophy.

Economics is not the be-all and end-all of policy and decision making, but it is a powerful tool, and it ranks up there with sociology, political processes and psychology. To deride it so ignorantly, though, is utterly foolish.

Economics is not the be-all and end-all of policy and decision making, but it is a powerful tool, and it ranks up there with sociology, political processes and psychology. To deride it so ignorantly, though, is utterly foolish.

Hey Don't leave out History !!!!

Hey Don't leave out History !!!!

History belongs as well :)

Economics is not in the business of predicting the future.
But how can you "[help] to suggest appropriate policy solutions to a wide variety of challenges" without some prediction involved?

Prediction, that is, on the level of 'if you do x, y will happen'.

To deride it so ignorantly, though, is utterly foolish.
I'm not deriding anything.

History belongs as well :)

Don't you forget that prime minister of the UK is a history man.

But how can you "[help] to suggest appropriate policy solutions to a wide variety of challenges" without some prediction involved?

Prediction, that is, on the level of 'if you do x, y will happen'.

Economics will make use of the analytic capability of the discipline, but it will not make use of absolutes, due to concerns about Z variables. There is a large body of work documenting how economies tend to behave when provided with stimulus x, but we cannot control for everything in the real world, and thus do not make absolute predictions.

Basically, economics appreciates the implications of chaos theory.

I'm not deriding anything.

Fiddlebottom's the one that's looking at.

And I'm Napoleon I *rolleyes*.
Oh tray bong, tray tray tray bong.
No, you're idiotically wrong.
That's the idea, let's contradict each other!
Economics is a social science, and you're understanding of how and why it exists is woefully lacking.
Which puts it in such illustrious company as Sociology and Political Science.
*cough, cough* Dark Matter *cough, cough*
You might want to get that cough looked at. I also suggest talking to the doctor about your problems with compulsive attacks of ad hominem and non sequitur.
Dark matter is a hypothetical substance that might explain certain astronomical quirks. A "hypothesis" is something that a scientist can have, because they can eventually conduct further investigation to prove or disprove their ideas. Unlike an economist.
Physics and economics are not as different as you make them out to be. We look at the effects of properties or actions on a complex system, and try to describe that system. Neither group systemically "cherry picks" data or examples.
Any time an economist points to Historical Event A as proof of Idea X, they are cherry picking. First they find an event that seems to fit their model, then they only focus on those aspects of the event that seem connected to their model. Thus why people can argue forever about whether FDR made the Great Depression worse or longer or shorter. Was WWII an economic miracle?
Your level of ignorance of how an economist does what he or she does is astonishing. There's a significant amount of experimentation,
An experiment is performed in a contained, controlled environment. It is repeatable by multiple groups of people. Economists do not perform "experiments."
They can conduct surveys or play silly games with volunteers, but that's the limit of it.

Further, I think you're confusing economics with your own major, philosophy.
My own major is English, Philosophy is my minor.
Economics is a filthy bastard child of philosophy that loses all the interesting bits for a load of dangerous pretensions.

Economics will make use of the analytic capability of the discipline, but it will not make use of absolutes, due to concerns about Z variables. There is a large body of work documenting how economies tend to behave when provided with stimulus x, but we cannot control for everything in the real world, and thus do not make absolute predictions.
How can one be confidant in these tendencies while acknowledging the unquantifiable variation?

How can it be analytic (be 'science-y', a social science)?

(I'm not, necessarily, saying it couldn't, just that I don't know what economists say about it.)

Besides which, I'm right. Economics is not a science, because it is not based upon repeatable experimentation.

It's based upon repeatable observation, like you know... the ECONOMY. Also, much of economic work is based on actual scientific experiments, see 'experimental economics' and even neural economics (there are brain scans in my UNI which are used for data). But economics is not a science like physics... no, it's imprecise, I like to call it an imprecise science.


An economist, on the other hand, can say, "Protectionism doesn't work."

No economist when making a serious academic paper EVER EVER EVER says this. In fact, earlier this week I was doing an essay on the welfare effects of PTA tariffs, and showing how in some cases they can actually be BENEFICIAL. But sure, if you want to base your arguments on completely false caricatures of what economist say, then go ahead.

Oh tray bong, tray tray tray bong.

Basically, I don't trust you. Easier princess?

That's the idea, let's contradict each other!

Which puts it in such illustrious company as Sociology and Political Science.

Which have real descriptive value, unlike your useless ninny of a program. Political Science is an attempt to apply the basic theories of economics to develop an understanding of how politics works.

You might want to get that cough looked at. I also suggest talking to the doctor about your problems with compulsive attacks of ad hominem and non sequitur.

Are you opposed to my accurate descriptions?


Dark matter is a hypothetical substance that might explain certain astronomical quirks. A "hypothesis" is something that a scientist can have, because they can eventually conduct further investigation to prove or disprove their ideas. Unlike an economist.

My point is that there are phenomenon which cannot be directly measured, but whose effects we can measure. Your philosophy minor clearly has not taught you how to make analogies.

Any time an economist points to Historical Event A as proof of Idea X, they are cherry picking. First they find an event that seems to fit their model, then they only focus on those aspects of the event that seem connected to their model. Thus why people can argue forever about whether FDR made the Great Depression worse or longer or shorter. Was WWII an economic miracle?

That is not economic history and politics. Different creature entirely. To do anything in economics, you need a broad base of data, which you need to systematically analyze. You can't just pick and choose, you have to look everywhere, and across broad periods of time, otherwise you're findings will be ripped to shreds.

An experiment is performed in a contained, controlled environment. It is repeatable by multiple groups of people. Economists do not perform "experiments."
They can conduct surveys or play silly games with volunteers, but that's the limit of it.

Surveys and games which are representative of human decision making processes. It's really not that hard to grasp.

Any time an economist points to Historical Event A as proof of Idea X, they are cherry picking. First they find an event that seems to fit their model, then they only focus on those aspects of the event that seem connected to their model. Thus why people can argue forever about whether FDR made the Great Depression worse or longer or shorter. Was WWII an economic miracle?

Damnit, why didn't you say this a week ago? I turned down the opportunity to do an economics dissertation last week in favour of a business one because I thought it would be too difficult. But now you tell me that all I had to do was point to a single event and claim it proves my theory, and that is acceptable within economic study? They should have taught us that in the first three years of economics rather than all the complicated modelling and econometrics that I thought I had to use to construct a theory.

My own major is English, Philosophy is my minor.

So sorry...enjoy teaching :)

Economics is a filthy bastard child of philosophy that loses all the interesting bits for a load of dangerous pretensions.

The classic claim of every poorly funded philosophy department on every university campus in the world.

While, yes, like the physical sciences there are several key elements of philosophy applied to the social sciences, they are not subsets of philosophy, as philosophy makes no attempt to use the scientific method.

While, yes, like the physical sciences there are several key elements of philosophy applied to the social sciences, they are not subsets of philosophy, as philosophy makes no attempt to use the scientific method.

Tbh, I would rather study philosophy than economics (speaking as an economics student myself), I find it slightly more interesting. Also, everything is a subset of philosophy, even science.

While, yes, like the physical sciences there are several key elements of philosophy applied to the social sciences, they are not subsets of philosophy, as philosophy makes no attempt to use the scientific method.
Yet the scientific method is a method used in natural philosophy (as of late), a subset of philosophy.

Ya'll are our bitches. :P

Tbh, I would rather study philosophy than economics (speaking as an economics student itself), I find it slightly more interesting. Also, everything is a subset of philosophy, even science.

We use key philosophical ideas and structures, but we do not operate like philosophy.

We use key philosophical ideas and structures, but we do not operate like philosophy.
Little does...

We use key philosophical ideas and structures, but we do not operate like philosophy.

True

Damnit, why didn't you say this a week ago? I turned down the opportunity to do an economics dissertation last week in favour of a business one because I thought it would be too difficult. But now you tell me that all I had to do was point to a single event and claim it proves my theory, and that is acceptable within economic study? They should have taught us that in the first three years of economics rather than all the complicated modelling and econometrics that I thought I had to use to construct a theory.

I've a sneaking suspicion that Fiddlebottom's has classified a whole range of other things, ranging from political polemic through the study of Broadway musical into one large bogeyman he refers to as "economics", which filches all the university money from his beloved fields. It's an attitude I've actually seen in other school's philosophy departments and classics faculty.

-snip-
I'm not sure whether there's much of a point in getting into an argument with you, because I don't think you've got a basic understanding of what economics is and what it does. Every single thing you have described is a caricature of Old Keynesian macroeconomics as practiced in the 50s and 60s, nothing you said fits even remotely with the discipline today.

I can understand why you'd confuse the two, because there is a powerful influence in public debate to call things economics because they're opinions connected with the economy, and because the sort of early undergrad courses many people will have been exposed to basically lack all the analytical rigour that you claim economics as a whole doesn't have. Go to a PhD class in it at a proper school and you may change your mind.

Anyways, here's an analogy for you: a few hundred years ago, we had no idea what heat was. We had people experience it, and we had people trying to describe it. But it took a long time and a lot of effort to come up with a system of theories that seems to cover all the bases. We can't actually show that it is correct, but we can exclude all alternatives someone comes up with. There is in fact no reason for why economics can't do the same. Microeconomics in particular can make the same observations, experimental and in a general setting, and can come up with rules. The longer we have to work on them and try to refute them, the better they will get. The discipline is barely 200 years old. And good macroeconomics is nothing but an outgrowth of microeconomics covering many agents.

But yeah, I'm not here to claim that our understanding of protectionism is equal to our understanding of gravity. If you prefer it, we can replace the physicist in my analogy with Isaac Newton. He too had all sorts of people telling him that ideas about masses attracting each other and apples falling towards the centre of the earth were rubbish, the evidence just happened to be coincidental and his maths was pointless.

But since actual economics, and indeed my attempt at pointing towards its existence, is likely to bore you, I've got this instead: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/economics/

But yeah, I'm not here to claim that our understanding of protectionism is equal to our understanding of gravity. If you prefer it, we can replace the physicist in my analogy with Isaac Newton. He too had all sorts of people telling him that ideas about masses attracting each other and apples falling towards the centre of the earth were rubbish, the evidence just happened to be coincidental and his maths was pointless.
Do you think it's possible that economics will ever transfer from a social science to a 'hard' science?

Do you think it's possible that economics will ever transfer from a social science to a 'hard' science?
It'll only ever be a 'hard' science as much as History, Sociology etc., seeing as data can most definitely and is most definitely faked. If you have consistently bad evidence, doing any kind of real analysis which would make it more of a proper science is a bit tricky.

Do you think it's possible that economics will ever transfer from a social science to a 'hard' science?
What reason is there that says there can't be a 'hard' social science?

-snip-

I defer to your understanding of economics but not to your understanding of the real world.

Here on earth, if I drop an apple it will "obey" Newton's theory of gravitation. No ifs, no buts. For sure Newton's theory is incorrect in high gravitational fields and at the quantum level, however it is perfectly useful for apples and the earth. We can all predict with precision the behaviour of the apple.

Economics can never do that. I am currently in "savings" mode. You, and no other economist, can predict with any certainty when I change to "spending" mode. I don't even know when that will happen. All over the world people lack the confidence to spend. Economics can neither define nor predict confidence.

What reason is there that says there can't be a 'hard' social science?

Because "Hard Social Science" sounds too sexy. All the other Scientific fields would have to gang up on Economics and take it down.

I defer to your understanding of economics but not to your understanding of the real world.

Here on earth, if I drop an apple it will "obey" Newton's theory of gravitation. No ifs, no buts. For sure Newton's theory is incorrect in high gravitational fields and at the quantum level, however it is perfectly useful for apples and the earth. We can all predict with precision the behaviour of the apple.

Economics can never do that. I am currently in "savings" mode. You, and no other economist, can predict with any certainty when I change to "spending" mode. I don't even know when that will happen. All over the world people lack the confidence to spend. Economics can neither define nor predict confidence.

Economists cannot predict individual actions, but they can predict that there will be an eventual turnaround in the spending/savings ratio as prices fall.

Economics can never do that. I am currently in "savings" mode. You, and no other economist, can predict with any certainty when I change to "spending" mode. I don't even know when that will happen. All over the world people lack the confidence to spend. Economics can neither define nor predict confidence.
But I can get pretty close. I can tell you several things that have to be true about you and your behaviour for you to be in "savings" mode, and by extension I can tell you what would have to happen for you to get back into spending. I can also predict what you'd do if you acted rationally - not that flash for all individuals, but a pretty useful thing on aggregate, since irrational people tend to end up poor (in fact, in pure theory, they starve to death) and with little influence on aggregate outcomes.

But at any rate, your question is not that good either. It's like asking Newton whether he can predict if an apple X is falling at any given point in time. He'd have no choice himself to ask what the circumstances are. Is the apple sitting on a table? Is it floating in space? He can describe what happens when an apple falls, and make predictions given certain preconditions. He can't make accurate predictions about something with no further information.

Economists cannot predict individual actions, but they can predict that there will be an eventual turnaround in the spending/savings ratio as prices fall.

But, with what certainty?

We are getting off-topic here. Personally, I am opposed to protectionism. It is a provincial and chauvinistic response to perceived economic problems. If I live in Darwin there are no special taxes or duties on goods and services from Melbourne yet there will from goods and services from Jakarta which is much, much closer.

Why is this so? Why are Darwinians happy to penalise their near neighbours in Jakarta but not more distant neighbours in Melbourne? Why is the welfare of Melburnians more important thant the welfare of Indonesians? It's because here in Australia we have a narrow view of what constitutes our community. When we all see ourselves as citizens of the world first, then Australians or Americans or Britons second, then we will see how foolish protectionism is.

[Post thread split edit]We are no longer getting off-topic here[/Post thread split edit]

What reason is there that says there can't be a 'hard' social science?
I can't think of a 'social science', or a humanities subject as I'd prefer to call them, that can hold claim to be a tradition which upholds empirical verifiability, refutable theories, the scientific method in other words.

When we all see ourselves as citizens of the world first, then Australians or Americans or Britons second, then we will see how foolish protectionism is.
Thank goodness this won't happen any time soon!

Isn't the idea that Science is still in its late infant stages and still needs to be unpacked so that social sciences and other enterprises are able to make use of it.

At the moment Sociology, Psychology and presumably economics borrow scientific and mathematic techniques and apply them where possible. Therefore isn't it better to say that they are scientific approaches to problems that science is trying to approach.

Science doesn't need empirical proof to exist. In fact, it often doesn't. Social sciences apply the scientific method to human situations, and are thus scientific.

I can't think of a 'social science', or a humanities subject as I'd prefer to call them, that can hold claim to be a tradition which upholds empirical verifiability, refutable theories, the scientific method in other words.
The link I posted about the philosophy of economics talks at length about the idea of empirical verifiability. Of course it's a problem, but I don't see how it is one that is actually unsolvable and so central to the process itself that we can't come up with economic laws that are as good as the laws of gravity we have right now. As I said above, just a law of gravity doesn't tell us everything about everything either - we need additional information ("assumptions" if we're talking about a thought experiment...or if we were to go into the deeper philosophical discussions about the nature of knowledge) to define the conditions under which we're applying these laws.

I think you need to abandon the idea that economics and the random thoughts you hear in the media about macroeconomic policy are equivalent. Once you do that, and you go into areas like general equilibrium microeconomics, game theory and mechanism design theory, and the way experimental and behavioural economics aims to challenge the assumptions used in the former and leads to modifications all the time (not that experimental economics is actually all that successful at disproving the basic orthodox assumptions) you can understand what I'm talking about. Macroeconomics is interesting and practically relevant, but as a science it's very imperfect - and all macroeconomists know that. Microeconomics is a lot further (and, ironically, it's also the one with the assumptions in it most people don't like), and the ultimate goal is to develop a set of micro theories that can be combined to model an entire economy and fuse the two together.

At the moment Sociology, Psychology and presumably economics borrow scientific and mathematic techniques and apply them where possible. Therefore isn't it better to say that they are scientific approaches to problems that science is trying to approach.
So economists try and solve a scientific problem with scientific approaches? That's pretty much a science then, right?

Which puts it in such illustrious company as Sociology and Political Science.
Please! Take it easy on us Political Scientists ;)

Anyway, I love Philosophy and I like Economics.

Economics and Political Science are sciences...they are just called social sciences. I agree they are not as concrete in terms of testible results as chemistry or something, but they are still considered a science nonetheless.

I shall also admit. . . in my philosophy class I loved studying economic philosophy much more than actual raw econ.

economics is offered as a BS so it is a science ?

*is an actual scientist*

Economists are not invited to the parties, therefore economists are not real scientists. Try joining the social sciences, maybe they'll have you.

economics is offered as a BS so it is a science ?
At my undergrad university it was a BComm or a BA.

So economists try and solve a scientific problem with scientific approaches? That's pretty much a science then, right?

What's a falsifiable, testable hypothesis of economics?

At my undergrad university it was a BComm or a BA.

mine offers it as both.

mine offers it as both.

This doesn't make it a science. It means that your school has a silly way of classifying its degrees.

This doesn't make it a science. It means that your school has a silly way of classifying its degrees.

http://www.lerner.udel.edu/Economics/BAorBS.html

not my uni. but yet another offering both.

seems as a science you focus on the math and as a art you focus on the foreign language lol.

http://www.lerner.udel.edu/Economics/BAorBS.html

not my uni. but yet another offering both.

seems as a science you focus on the math and as a art you focus on the foreign language lol.
Yes, but there are some schools that offer engineering as a BS, that doesn't make engineering the same as sciences.

Name some testable predictions of various economic theories and describe how one would experimentally test these.

Yes, but there are some schools that offer engineering as a BS, that doesn't make engineering the same as sciences.

Name some testable predictions of various economic theories and describe how one would experimentally test these.

that's a pretty narrow view of science. I just view science as any systematic knowledge or practice. which both engineering and economics fits into. Seriously wouldn't most universities offer engineering as a BS ? seems like the math courses would help a lot more then foreign language.

that's a pretty narrow view of science. I just view science as any systematic knowledge or practice. which both engineering and economics fits into. Seriously wouldn't most universities offer engineering as a BS ? seems like the math courses would help a lot more then foreign language.
At my undergrad, engineering students received a BEng. There was also BHSc (bachelor of health sciences), BComm (bachelor of commerce), BA (bachelor of Arts, which went to social science students as well), BSc (bachelor of science) and I think there might have been a BKin.

Science isn't just "any systematic knowledge or practice" it has a very precise meaning. I suggest that you look into Popper or any philosophy of science.

Oh also, I'm not saying that engineers aren't scientists therefore they are less important or anything like this, the separation of engineering degrees from science degrees is more a reflection of the sorts of training one receives in each discipline. In the sciences, one is generally trained to be a researcher so there is generally more exposure to theory; in engineering, one is more often trained to applied sciences so the theory work is usually not as important.

Also I should point out that when my dad when to undergrad, he did a degree in chemistry which was in the Arts department at the time. So BS(c) vs BA is not really a good indication of whether something is a science or not.

Yes it is a science. While it may not be a physical science it is a social science thus meaning it is a science.

Now the difference between the two is that physical sciences deals with the explanation of hat happens, in other words they answer the "what?" and "how?" of a occurrence such as gravity. Economics also attempts to answer the question of "why?" and seeks to explain why something happens. Now to take gravity as an example the hard science will be able to explain what gravity is and how gravity occurs but it is unable to answer why gravity occurs or Why do we have gravity. Economics while not seeking the answer to that question will for other occurrences will seek to understand why things happen the way it does.

To put it a bit more briefly in regards to epistemology and two main epistemology's. Physical sciences belong more to the positivism side while social sciences are much more interpretive why? Because people, institutions and systems are different from natural objects that are studied by the physical sciences, which is why economics also seeks to understand why things happen the way they do, physical sciences do not bother about this.

that's a pretty narrow view of science. I just view science as any systematic knowledge or practice. which both engineering and economics fits into. Seriously wouldn't most universities offer engineering as a BS ? seems like the math courses would help a lot more then foreign language.

I would have thought that universties would have offered engineering as a BEng, well at least that's what I have seen here in many unis in Australia.

And in regards to economics other offer it as a stand alone degree i.e BEc

I don't know if this helps but the word "science" is derived from the Latin "scire", meaning "to know".

Science could be seen as simply a system of knowledge.

Yes it is a science. While it may not be a physical science it is a social science thus meaning it is a science.

Social sciences aren't really sciences either.

Also, physical science = physics, astronomy, chemistry...
life sciences = biology, biochem, psychology... there's more to actual science than physical science.

Economics also attempts to answer the question of "why?" and seeks to explain why something happens.

So does philosophy. Does that make it a science?

Now to take gravity as an example the hard science will be able to explain what gravity is and how gravity occurs but it is unable to answer why gravity occurs or Why do we have gravity.

The current theory is that we have gravity because spacetime curves due to the influence of mass/energy. Why particles have mass, however... is still in progress. (as far as I understand it, not my area of expertise)

Economics while not seeking the answer to that question will for other occurrences will seek to understand why things happen the way it does.

So does philosophy.

To put it a bit more briefly in regards to epistemology and two main epistemology's. Physical sciences belong more to the positivism side while social sciences are much more interpretive why? Because people, institutions and systems are different from natural objects that are studied by the physical sciences, which is why economics also seeks to understand why things happen the way they do, physical sciences do not bother about this.

I wouldn't say that physical sciences don't bother to understand why things happen the way they do. Actually, I'd say that this statement is pretty damn wrong. Why particles have mass is actually an important question... but scientists (proper scientists, mind you) have come up with theories to explain this and have come up with tests to test the predictions of these theories (this is part of what the LHC is about).

I don't know if this helps but the word "science" is derived from the Latin "scire", meaning "to know".

Science could be seen as simply a system of knowledge.

exactly right and both physical sciences and social sciences seek that. The question becomes what constitutes knowledge? Which is why I talked a bit about epistemology in my previous post.

exactly right and both physical sciences and social sciences seek that.

So does philosophy. Are you going to argue that philosophy is a science too?

People doing English degrees are also gaining knowledge. Are they doing science?

Just because the word science is derived from the latin for something doesn't mean that it hasn't become something different and more specific. And really, if you're going to argue about economics being a social science, why not women's studies? Why not underwater basket weaving?

The question becomes what constitutes knowledge? Which is why I talked a bit about epistemology in my previous post.

I'm not sure if this is really the question...

Social sciences aren't really sciences either.

Isn't that what we are arguing here?

The current theory is that we have gravity because spacetime curves due to the influence of mass/energy. Why particles have mass, however... is still in progress. (as far as I understand it, not my area of expertise)

That is more of an explanation of how gravity works, not saying why it works. Why does space time curve due to the influence of mass/energy?

I wouldn't say that physical sciences don't bother to understand why things happen the way they do. Actually, I'd say that this statement is pretty damn wrong.

Actually mate, it does attempt to explain why things happen the way they do, and in fact you confirmed this yourself earlier when I said it and you said so does philosophy. So either mate, it does or it doesn't make up your mind in what your 'truth' is. It attempts to explain why does the marginal propensity to consume decrease when the economy experiences a down turn is a very simple basic example.

So does philosophy. Are you going to argue that philosophy is a science too?

People doing English degrees are also gaining knowledge. Are they doing science?

Just because the word science is derived from the latin for something doesn't mean that it hasn't become something different and more specific. And really, if you're going to argue about economics being a social science, why not women's studies? Why not underwater basket weaving?

Gaining knowledge is not exactly seeking knowledge, or would you be saying that students studying Chemistry at high school scientists? After all they are also gaining knowledge in a physical science.

How exactly would underwater basket weaving be a science? More of an art really. As for women's studies I do not know enough about it to say anything on it, however, if it seeks knowledge and answering questions on understanding and explanation of women and institutions and the relation between them then yes it is a social science, in fact it may be an extension of behavioral science depending on the exact branch, but as I say I don't know enough about women's studies.

I'm not sure if this is really the question...

Actually dude, it does you just brought this up in the rest of your post. What constitutes knowledge? Is it something that can only be confirmed by our senses and the use of induction to develop theory and deduction to test hypothesis? Or is it more than that after all people and institutions are different to the physical world and truth and knowledge may be relative and what one person sees may be different to what someone else sees. Are all "truths" valid?

Isn't that what we are arguing here?

And I'm saying that the way you're going about it is wrong. Why isn't philosophy a science by your definition?

That is more of an explanation of how gravity works, not saying why it works. Why does space time curve due to the influence of mass/energy?

I thought that I said this... they're working on that part.

Actually mate, it does attempt to explain why things happen the way they do, and in fact you confirmed this yourself earlier when I said it and you said so does philosophy. So either mate, it does or it doesn't make up your mind in what your 'truth' is. It attempts to explain why does the marginal propensity to consume decrease when the economy experiences a down turn is a very simple basic example.

What?

You're the one who said:

...which is why economics also seeks to understand why things happen the way they do, physical sciences do not bother about this.

I said that this statement is inaccurate. Real science is concerned with "why" as well as the "how" and "what" these questions are all sort of intertwined. Perhaps science is not concerned with the sort of why you're thinking about which seems to be some wishy washy thing.

Further, when I pointed out that philosophy tries to understand why, it was more to point out that you're not trying to classify philosophy as a science (and I wouldn't either), so what makes a discipline asking "why?" scientific? Does economics follow the scientific method? Do economists make falsifiable predictions?

I would have thought that universties would have offered engineering as a BEng, well at least that's what I have seen here in many unis in Australia.

And in regards to economics other offer it as a stand alone degree i.e BEc

most of the US undergraduate degrees to my knowledge are BA or BS's
likely because we tend to have more broad degrees I think(though i haven't really compared).

And I'm saying that the way you're going about it is wrong. Why isn't philosophy a science by your definition?

I thought that I said this... they're working on that part.

Does philosophy fit in with my definition? Furthermore I am yet to say if it is or isn't but I would have to look into exactly what philosophy is more deeply to tell you why it isn't.

What?

You're the one who said: *snip*

Ah ok mate, I thought you were saying that social sciences don't ask why things happen.

So are you saying then that physical (and natural) sciences are actually more interpretive rather than positive and that scientists would say that truth is relative?

so the answer comes down to how broad your definition of science is?

Gaining knowledge is not exactly seeking knowledge, or would you be saying that students studying Chemistry at high school scientists? After all they are also gaining knowledge in a physical science.

So someone doing graduate work in English is clearly seeking knowledge. They're a scientist now?

How exactly would underwater basket weaving be a science? More of an art really. As for women's studies I do not know enough about it to say anything on it, however, if it seeks knowledge and answering questions on understanding and explanation of women and institutions and the relation between them then yes it is a social science, in fact it may be an extension of behavioral science depending on the exact branch, but as I say I don't know enough about women's studies.

Oh, but there must be a way to refine the techniques of underwater basket weaving such that the most refined and perfect baskets can be created.

And really, when you're expanding your definition of science to include women's studies, you have officially made your definition of science meaningless.

Actually dude, it does you just brought this up in the rest of your post. What constitutes knowledge? Is it something that can only be confirmed by our senses and the use of induction to develop theory and deduction to test hypothesis? Or is it more than that after all people and institutions are different to the physical world and truth and knowledge may be relative and what one person sees may be different to what someone else sees. Are all "truths" valid?

Actually, dude, not everyone likes being called a dude. Especially those of us who don't have penises or who are attempting to engage in some sort of discussion with someone who is presumably not high.
There are different types of knowledge, but not all of them are scientific. This is the more important question for this type of discussion. If you want to start a thread discussing the nature of knowledge go for it, but this isn't the place to do it. This is a place to discuss whether economics is a science. So the more important question is "what is science?". Since we have established that your current definition is utterly devoid of meaning, perhaps you would like to establish a new definition?

So someone doing graduate work in English is clearly seeking knowledge. They're a scientist now?

You tell me, mate.

Oh, but there must be a way to refine the techniques of underwater basket weaving such that the most refined and perfect baskets can be created.

And really, when you're expanding your definition of science to include women's studies, you have officially made your definition of science meaningless.

As I said I don't know enough about women's studies to say if it is so technically I am not.

Actually, dude, not everyone likes being called a dude. Especially those of us who don't have penises or who are attempting to engage in some sort of discussion with someone who is presumably not high.
There are different types of knowledge, but not all of them are scientific. This is the more important question for this type of discussion. If you want to start a thread discussing the nature of knowledge go for it, but this isn't the place to do it. This is a place to discuss whether economics is a science. So the more important question is "what is science?". Since we have established that your current definition is utterly devoid of meaning, perhaps you would like to establish a new definition?

Don't call me dude I'm not your mate :)

Well then dudette (:p)*, no I would not perhaps you can tell me what eaxtly your definition is.

*Ok, that was the last time.

Does philosophy fit in with my definition? Furthermore I am yet to say if it is or isn't but I would have to look into exactly what philosophy is more deeply to tell you why it isn't.

Your definition of science seems to include "asking why?" and "seeking knowledge". So I would say that philosophy (which derives from "love of knowledge" in Greek) fits in your definition nicely.

Ah ok mate, I thought you were saying that social sciences don't ask why things happen.

I'm not sure how you got that. I thought that I restated the part I was objecting to.

So are you saying then that physical (and natural) sciences are actually more interpretive rather than positive and that scientists would say that truth is relative?

No, I wouldn't say that they're particularly interpretive (well, maybe the life sciences become a bit iffy on this point), but scientists do often ask themselves "why?". I also wouldn't say that the truth is particularly relative (at least at non-relativistic speeds), but your ability to determine the truth changes (or is non-existent) relative to the sensitivity of your instruments.

Basically, I don't trust you ... princess ... your useless ninny of a program ... [insert other arrogant remarks and misdirected angst as desired] ...
Ah, I see. Well, I've rather decided that I distrust your implicit claims of existence. There is no way that someone could be so pointlessly aggressive and obnoxious without provocation; therefore you cannot exist. No intelligible statement can emerge without their first being an author for it, so your argument must not exist either.
I can only conclude that you and your unmerited hostility were simply a brief and uncomfortable moment of mental flatulence. Fortunately, I'm taking measures to insure that future incidents of Andaluciae don't occur in my perception of the world.

Well then dudette (:p)*, no I would not perhaps you can tell me what eaxtly your definition is.

*Ok, that was the last time.

I would say that in order for something to be considered scientific, it has to involve a falsifiable prediction (which is to say a prediction which can in theory be proven false) at the very least. It would also have to generally follow the scientific method and involve some sort of repeatable empirical experiment/observation which supports or refutes the theoretical prediction.
It also means that if a prediction of a theory is shown to be incorrect through repeatable (properly conducted) empirical experiment or observation, then the theory needs to be revised or abandoned.
Since it is at best difficult and at worst impossible to set up an economic experiment, one is left with observations, but one has no real way of isolating all the variables so one cannot do proper science. One cannot exactly repeat the experiment either. The best one can really do is statistical guesswork and try to avoid assuming causation when there is simply a correlation. There are probably more reasons economics is not scientific, but it's late and I'm tired.

Your definition of science seems to include "asking why?" and "seeking knowledge". So I would say that philosophy (which derives from "love of knowledge" in Greek) fits in your definition nicely.

But does it also seek to explain "what?" and "how?"

I'm not sure how you got that. I thought that I restated the part I was objecting to.[/QUOTE

No, I said economics seeks to explain how also, I thought you were saying this was wrong.

[QUOTE]No, I wouldn't say that they're particularly interpretive (well, maybe the life sciences become a bit iffy on this point), but scientists do often ask themselves "why?". I also wouldn't say that the truth is particularly relative (at least at non-relativistic speeds), but your ability to determine the truth changes (or is non-existent) relative to the sensitivity of your instruments.

True, but that is the difference between sciences such as physics and biology is that they say that truth isn't relative and this is how it is (until it is dis proven of course). Where as because people and institutions are different to natural objects truth can be seen as relative and is why knowledge in such things as economics seeks to understand and explain these things, and yes when an economic theory is dis proven it does seek to be a truth, however, it can be much harder as different interpretations can still be true.

Well, yes, they are. But they are a soft science. Hard sciences, as it has been pointed out, have to provide predictions that can be falsifiable. The problem of the soft sciences is that the predictions have to deal with human nature.

Or to put it another way, a biologist working with genes can tell you what the genes will do.

A social scientist can tell you what a human might do, but given that humans have a tendency to NOT do what they should does not invalidate the theory, but doesn't make it as air tight as say the biologist's.

No economist when making a serious academic paper EVER EVER EVER says this. In fact, earlier this week I was doing an essay on the welfare effects of PTA tariffs, and showing how in some cases they can actually be BENEFICIAL. But sure, if you want to base your arguments on completely false caricatures of what economist say, then go ahead.
My original statement, (way back in the other thread) was in response to NL comparing an economist's understanding of protectionism to a physicist's understanding of gravity. The context is important here.
Damnit, why didn't you say this a week ago? I turned down the opportunity to do an economics dissertation last week in favour of a business one because I thought it would be too difficult. But now you tell me that all I had to do was point to a single event and claim it proves my theory, and that is acceptable within economic study? They should have taught us that in the first three years of economics rather than all the complicated modelling and econometrics that I thought I had to use to construct a theory.
Supporting a theory is difficult work, even if the theory is complete bullshit and the supports are utter nonsense. Just ask the pre-heliocentric astronomers, or a 9-11 Truther. (I'm not saying that economists are nearly as bad as that, but using a hyperbolic example to illustrate your arguments weakness).

-snip-

That is a rather poetic(?) way of saying what I think you are saying. Putting him on ignore right?

I would put economics in a class with the likes of: Psychology, Sociology, political science

In a closed system economic sometimes works. When we move into the realm of macroeconomic it is educated guess work. There is of course alot of math and really pretty chart but mostly smoke and mirrors and the best mathematical models can only get about 60 to 70% accurate. There is some math in there, some business practices a little bit of statistics.

IIRC, the standards are different between the "hard" and "social" sciences. An example: in my social science statistics and research methods course, we were taught that an SD of 2 was statistically significant. It's my understanding that an SD of 1.5 is required in the hard sciences.

(Hope I got all that right - that course work was 20 years ago...)

So, when using "science", as is common, to refer to the "hard sciences", no, economics is not a science.

Okay hang on a bit here:

Economists do run experiments, particularly those researching micro level stuff. For example, they'll run a clinic that gives people different rewards for taking drugs to see which rewards get people to keep to their prescriptions, or test out whether money or rice is better at attracting blood donations in india or whatever. They'll try to track where foreign aid goes or how families respond to welfare.

They can also use polls, like the other social sciences, and people keep records of their exchanges which economists can look at to find trends over time.

Economists may not always agree with each other but they can produce hard data that will be shared with each other and interpreted differently Sociologists and Psychologists do this too, by the way.

Also, microeconomics and the research it produces can be directly applied to governments or businesses or even unlikely niches like law enforcement or education.

People do adapt to take advantage of any system you impose on them, and that is a weakness of the social sciences. Nature doesn't adapt itself to thwart our machines. That doesn't mean it's not scientific and not useful though.

What's a falsifiable, testable hypothesis of economics?

That's pretty easy to answer:

Say economist A claims that B will happen to the Chinese economy within 10 to 15 years.

We observe the Chinese economy, and see what happens - testing. If B does not happen to the Chinese economy, the economist is proven wrong - falsified. Yes, this process takes a long time, and economics is also a young field of study, so it's no way near as rigorous as physics, but that doesn't mean it's completely unscientific. Immediate experiments are often performed as well, like with psychologists. For instance, person theorises that humans generally make decision a, when confronted with incentives b. Researches will then get a most unbiased and accurate sample of the population, and try to recreate the incentives as accurately as possible, in order to observe the decision making process and see if the persons claim is validated.

While we are on the subject I don't think computer science should be allowed either. Physics, chemistry, biology are sciences. Pretty much anything with an engineering department. Electrical is based on mostly physics and a very little bit of chemistry, mechanical is physics, civil is based on physics and a fair bit of chemistry.

That's pretty easy to answer:

Say economist A claims that B will happen to the Chinese economy within 10 to 15 years.

We observe the Chinese economy, and see what happens - testing. If B does not happen to the Chinese economy, the economist is proven wrong - falsified. Yes, this process takes a long time, and economics is also a young field of study, so it's no way near as rigorous as physics, but that doesn't mean it's completely unscientific. Immediate experiments are often performed as well, like with psychologists. For instance, person theorises that humans generally make decision a, when confronted with incentives b. Researches will then get a most unbiased and accurate sample of the population, and try to recreate the incentives as accurately as possible, in order to observe the decision making process and see if the persons claim is validated.

Not much better than betting on a horse then.

The Class A Cows;14576587']Okay hang on a bit here:

Economists do run experiments, particularly those researching micro level stuff. For example, they'll run a clinic that gives people different rewards for taking drugs to see which rewards get people to keep to their prescriptions, or test out whether money or rice is better at attracting blood donations in india or whatever. They'll try to track where foreign aid goes or how families respond to welfare.

They can also use polls, like the other social sciences, and people keep records of their exchanges which economists can look at to find trends over time.

Economists may not always agree with each other but they can produce hard data that will be shared with each other and interpreted differently Sociologists and Psychologists do this too, by the way.

Also, microeconomics and the research it produces can be directly applied to governments or businesses or even unlikely niches like law enforcement or education.

People do adapt to take advantage of any system you impose on them, and that is a weakness of the social sciences. Nature doesn't adapt itself to thwart our machines. That doesn't mean it's not scientific and not useful though.

Social scentists also do animal experiments. You just reminded me of Keith Chen's experements on monkeys (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/05FREAK.html?pagewanted=all). :)

Something else happened during that chaotic scene, something that convinced Chen of the monkeys' true grasp of money. Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of money, after all, is its fungibility, the fact that it can be used to buy not just food but anything. During the chaos in the monkey cage, Chen saw something out of the corner of his eye that he would later try to play down but in his heart of hearts he knew to be true. What he witnessed was probably the first observed exchange of money for sex in the history of monkeykind. (Further proof that the monkeys truly understood money: the monkey who was paid for sex immediately traded the token in for a grape.)

This is a sensitive subject. The capuchin lab at Yale has been built and maintained to make the monkeys as comfortable as possible, and especially to allow them to carry on in a natural state. The introduction of money was tricky enough; it wouldn't reflect well on anyone involved if the money turned the lab into a brothel. To this end, Chen has taken steps to ensure that future monkey sex at Yale occurs as nature intended it.

Prostitution really is the worlds oldest profession...

Not much better than betting on a horse then.

Well obviously I missed out a load of stuff, it's recursive. Assertions are built upon previous affirmed theories and understanding, and based on rigorous analysis of statistics and models as well as general reasoning. Once a theory is shown to be unrealistic, it is adapted to include more complexities, or more factors are added into the models which explain why the initial assertions were unrealistic, or it is simply rejected. That's exactly how science works.

Well obviously I missed out a load of stuff, it's recursive. Assertions are built upon previous affirmed theories and understanding, and based on rigorous analysis of statistics and models as well as general reasoning. Once a theory is shown to be unrealistic, it is adapted to include more complexities, or more factors are added into the models which explain why the initial assertions were unrealistic, or it is simply rejected. That's exactly how science works.

Well we study the form of a horse, the ground it's running on, the length of the field and more and then, based on past results, we can make predictions based on all these to call one horse favourite.

It might not even get out of the gate.

I see little difference with economics.

That's pretty easy to answer:

Say economist A claims that B will happen to the Chinese economy within 10 to 15 years.

We observe the Chinese economy, and see what happens - testing. If B does not happen to the Chinese economy, the economist is proven wrong - falsified. Yes, this process takes a long time, and economics is also a young field of study, so it's no way near as rigorous as physics, but that doesn't mean it's completely unscientific. Immediate experiments are often performed as well, like with psychologists. For instance, person theorises that humans generally make decision a, when confronted with incentives b. Researches will then get a most unbiased and accurate sample of the population, and try to recreate the incentives as accurately as possible, in order to observe the decision making process and see if the persons claim is validated.

Not quite... so what if B happens to the Chinese economy for a different reason?

So for instance you should have: In 10-15 years, the Chinese economy will collapse.
But what if the Chinese economy collapses due to political instability instead of due to the economic structure? What if it's simply that the population and resources are unsustainable? What if it's because five years from now, China gets caught up in a long, drawn out war and nukes the country it is at war with causing the international community to treat China as a pariah state, thus collapsing its economy? Your prediction really doesn't mean anything because any number of other circumstances could bring about the same result through different methods. And it's not like you can reset your experiment (which sort of violates the repeatable part of the requirement) and test out what happens in different scenarios because once China's economy has collapsed, it will likely rebuild itself in a different way and the world will have changed so the initial conditions will be nothing alike for both sets of observations.

Also: people who are lumping psychologists in with this, at least differentiate between behavioural psychologists (who can at least repeat their experiments and perform them in a controlled environment, unlike economists) and psychologists who are into neurology.

Well we study the form of a horse, the ground it's running on, the length of the field and more and then, based on past results, we can make predictions based on all these to call one horse favourite.

It might not even get out of the gate.

I see little difference with economics.

What difference are you looking for exactly?

What difference are you looking for exactly?

The one where an outcome is accurately predicted each and every time.

The one where an outcome is accurately predicted each and every time.
Yes, like real science with repeatable experiments.

So for instance you should have: In 10-15 years, the Chinese economy will collapse.
But what if the Chinese economy collapses due to political instability instead of due to the economic structure?

Then it's an incomplete test, since it was interrupted.


What if it's simply that the population and resources are unsustainable?

Generally, you'll be able to model which factor contributed the most. If the reason the economist stated wasn't a factor and did not behave in the way he thought it would, he would have been falsified.

Your prediction really doesn't mean anything because any number of other circumstances could bring about the same result through different methods.

That's why no economist ever makes predictions like that. If one did predict that the Chinese economy is going to collapse however, it would be done with a load of qualifications, like 'assuming there is no war' etc.. (which is a fucking given, this is pretty simple stuff).


And it's not like you can reset your experiment (which sort of violates the repeatable part of the requirement) and test out what happens in different scenarios because once China's economy has collapsed, it will likely rebuild itself in a different way and the world will have changed so the initial conditions will be nothing alike for both sets of observations.


Great. This only addresses a very very very very minor part of economics, that being hugely broad scale macro-economic analysis. That also happens to be its weakest field. Many other fields of economics deal with economic activity that gets repeated again and again, daily.


Also: people who are lumping psychologists in with this, at least differentiate between behavioural psychologists (who can at least repeat their experiments and perform them in a controlled environment at least and psychologists who are into neurology at least.

Not only do economists use behavioural experiments, but even neurological experiments. Researches in my university have been using brain scans to study brain patterns in behavioural experiments.

Great. This only addresses a very very very very minor part of economics, that being hugely broad scale macro-economic analysis. That also happens to be its weakest field. Many other fields of economics deal with economic activity that gets repeated again and again, daily.

Name a falsifiable prediction then?

Not only do economists use behavioural experiments, but even neurological experiments. Researches in my university have been using brain scans to study brain patterns in behavioural experiments.

Note your own words: Economists use behavioural experiments. Want to know who is performing these experiments? Psychologists. Even if they're calling themselves economists, they are doing psychology, not economics. Try again.

The one where an outcome is accurately predicted each and every time.

Well, if there was hundreds of years of study and research, with millions and millions of researches all around the world - many of whom being maths prodigies and many being former 'hard' scientists for instance - into the field of horse racing itself, then maybe you could make pretty good analysis and predictions of horse racing. Also, as I just said to Dakini, massively broad scale macro-economic predictions of the economy is a very minuscule part of the study of economics, I probably shouldn't have used that example of China.

Well, if there was hundreds of years of study and research, with millions and millions of researches all around the world - many of whom being maths prodigies and many being former 'hard' scientists for instance - into the field of horse racing itself, then maybe you could make pretty good analysis and predictions of horse racing.

So you'll be able to predict when a horse takes a misstep and breaks its leg coming out of the gates taking down the two horses on its right side?

Also, as I just said to Dakini, massively broad scale macro-economic predictions of the economy is a very minuscule part of the study of economics, I probably shouldn't have used that example of China.

Name some predictions.

Name a falsifiable prediction then?


The second one I gave you, after the Chinese economy one. And for fucks sake, it's not all about predictions anyway.


Note your own words: Economists use behavioural experiments. Want to know who is performing these experiments? Psychologists.

How the hell would you know? Also, why the fuck would that matter (other than an insanely childish 'psychologists vs economists debate'), as long as their contributing to the field of economics, and researching and making hypothesis to do with economics, whether they're full time profession is an economics researcher, or a psychologist, doesn't mean shit.

The second one I gave you, after the Chinese economy one. And for fucks sake, it's not all about predictions anyway.

Are you claiming that economics is a science?

If so, predictions are pretty important.

edit: also, your second example sounds like psychology to me.

How the hell would you know? Also, why the fuck would that matter (other than an insanely childish 'psychologists vs economists debate'), as long as their contributing to the field of economics, and researching and making hypothesis to do with economics, whether they're full time profession is an economics researcher, or a psychologist, doesn't mean shit.

The topic is "Is economics a science?". If the only examples you can give that makes economics a science are actually psychology, not economics, then this doesn't really support the position that economics is a science very well, does it?

So you'll be able to predict when a horse takes a misstep and breaks its leg coming out of the gates taking down the two horses on its right side?


Unlikely. But that's probably because the economy, and horse racing, are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.


Name some predictions.

Macro-economic ones? How about the predictions right now about the interest rates being cut again in Britain. Also, instead of whining, please provide some conclusions from an academic paper that you think are incredibly unrealistic.

Unlikely. But that's probably because the economy, and horse racing, are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

You've yet to explain why.

Both take previous data to form a prediction, neither can be 100% accurate in that prediction.

The topic is "Is economics a science?". If the only examples you can give that makes economics a science are actually psychology, not economics, then this doesn't really support the position that economics is a science very well, does it?

Most 'sciences' use a collection of other sciences. Geology for instance uses a mixture of chemistry and physics, that doesn't mean that geology itself is not really a 'science'.

You've yet to explain why.

Both take previous data to form a prediction, neither can be 100% accurate in that prediction.

The same is true for almost every science.

Unlikely. But that's probably because the economy, and horse racing, are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

How are they different?

Macro-economic ones? How about the predictions right now about the interest rates being cut again in Britain. Also, instead of whining, please provide some conclusions from an academic paper that you think are incredibly unrealistic.

What did I say about predictions being unrealistic? I said that economic theories cannot be properly tested because they cannot be repeated.

I think that you and I are possibly thinking of different predictions. I'm thinking of the sorts of predictions along the lines of: If theory A is correct then event B will happen in this manner when I do C while you seem to be thinking of predictions along the lines of "I predict that parties D and E will do action F".

To be clear, I'm not really arguing that economics isn't a science in general, I'm simply arguing that it's distinct from the sciences where accurate, repeatable predictions can be made.

Call it what you like, and it doesn't really detract from the value and insight gleaned from the study of economics, it just, simply remains distinct.

The same is true for almost every science.
Not really. If I do an experiment to measure the speed of light, I'm going to get the same result within uncertainty each and every time I measure it. If I do a different experiment to measure the speed of light, I'm still going to get the same value.

Barringtonia, what would you say if I decided print 800 trillion trillion dollars, and give it to everyone. I then decided to destroy all power plants, ban all trade and only allow 70 year old's to work and farm. I told you, 'hey, it's just as likely to work as any other policy, economics is all guess work right?' How would you feel?

Most 'sciences' use a collection of other sciences. Geology for instance uses a mixture of chemistry and physics, that doesn't mean that geology itself is not really a 'science'.

You missed my point. The only science in economics is psychology, which is not economics. It's not a mixture, it's using the results of science. This is definitely different.

Barringtonia, what would you say if I decided print 800 trillion trillion dollars, and give it to everyone. I then decided to destroy all power plants, ban all trade and only allow 70 year old's to work and farm. I told you, 'hey, it's just as likely to work as any other policy, economics is all guess work right?' How would you feel?

You didn't ask me, but I'd feel like I bet on the gimpy horse.

Doesn't mean the favoured is a winner either.

A science, but more along the lines of hypothetical rather than true hard science.

Not really. If I do an experiment to measure the speed of light, I'm going to get the same result within uncertainty each and every time I measure it. If I do a different experiment to measure the speed of light, I'm still going to get the same value.

I said the same is true for almost every science, not every science. Physics is probably the only one I can think of that can make completely objectively accurate predictions (ignoring philosophical questions of objective reality etc..) that will yield the exactly the same result every time.

Barringtonia, what would you say if I decided print 800 trillion trillion dollars, and give it to everyone. I then decided to destroy all power plants, ban all trade and only allow 70 year old's to work and farm. I told you, 'hey, it's just as likely to work as any other policy, economics is all guess work right?' How would you feel?

It might though.

Nowhere have I argued for 'just as likely', that's why we have odds in racing, we can generally predict the winner, just not always.

If I bet you your share of that 800 trillion trillion and it all actually did work, how would you feel?

You missed my point. The only science in economics is psychology, which is not economics.

Why the hell do you say this? It heavily uses maths and statistics (probably even more so), as well as general methods of reasoning and analysis.

It might though.


Think about it, this means that no house has electricity, nobody has any food or supplies and will starve to death (trading is banned, there is nobody capable of working properly, because only 70 year olds will be allowed to work). If it's not completely false that this will improve the economy, there is at least something like a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that it will.


Nowhere have I argued for 'just as likely', that's why we have odds in racing, we can generally predict the winner, just not always.


For one thing, unlike horse racing, you're not limited by a limited amount of options of all roughly equal ability. There are practically an infinite amount of things you can do to the economy.


If I bet you your share of that 800 trillion trillion and it all actually did work, how would you feel?

The same way I would feel if I saw a pig fly.

To be clear, I'm not really arguing that economics isn't a science in general, I'm simply arguing that it's distinct from the sciences where accurate, repeatable predictions can be made.


Are you saying there are no accurate economic predictions? Or that there is no economic activity that is constantly repeated?

Why the hell do you say this? It heavily uses maths and statistics (probably even more so), as well as general methods of reasoning and analysis.
Maths and statistics in themselves aren't sciences. Nor does employing these things make something a science (even when combined with reasoning and analysis). They can be tools of science, but they are not necessarily so.

You haven't given me any examples of economics as a science that aren't actually psychology (which is sort of a different field) so it appears to me that the closest economics gets to science is to make use of psychological tests and results. It does not do any science of its own.

Maths and statistics in themselves aren't sciences.

I didn't say they were.


They can be tools of science, but they are not necessarily so.


Right, and 'maths and statistics' is a tool of economics.


You haven't given me any examples of economics as a science that aren't actually psychology (which is sort of a different field) so it appears to me that the closest economics gets to science is to make use of psychological tests and results.

Well I can't exactly outline economics 101 to you in a short post.


It does not do any science of its own.

This is so nonsensical. What is 'science of its own'. Give me an example of a science which isn't one of the base ones like physics, that uses it's own science, and not just a collection of other sciences.

I said the same is true for almost every science, not every science. Physics is probably the only one I can think of that can make completely objectively accurate predictions (ignoring philosophical questions of objective reality etc..) that will yield the exactly the same result every time.

Really? In chemistry, if you preform the same experiment, you will get the same results as long as you do the experiment correctly. In biology, you might not get the exact same results, but you can preform enough controlled experiments to get actual statistics. In geology, you know that if you compress these minerals at these temperatures, you will start to get this sort of structure... hell, people can manufacture diamonds in labs now. How do you think that came about?

Are you saying there are no accurate economic predictions?

Not at all, it's kind of like those fairground games of guessing the weight of a cow, sure there's accurate predictions, many based on experience of cows and their weight but, in the final analysis, there's an element of luck in being right.

Or that there is no economic activity that is constantly repeated?

Go on then, genuinely curious, name me one, one you can bet your house on each and every time.

At most you can say 'extremely likely to', not '100% guaranteed to'.

In biology, you might not get the exact same results, but you can preform enough controlled experiments to get actual statistics.

This is a) exactly what economics often does and b) not at all 'completely accurate predictions', just like horse racing betting can never be completely accurate.


In geology, you know that if you compress these minerals at these temperatures, you will start to get this sort of structure...

That would be using the science of physics to come to this hypothesis. Is geology now not a science?

Right, and 'maths and statistics' is a tool of economics.

Right. Which is evidence that maths and statistics are not always used as tools of science.

Well I can't exactly outline economics 101 to you in a short post.

You don't have to, you just have to give an example. I'm a good self-teacher.

This is so nonsensical. What is 'science of its own'. Give me an example of a science which isn't one of the base ones like physics, that uses it's own science, and not just a collection of other sciences.

How is it nonsensical? I think that you think it's nonsensical because you are not reading what I am writing correctly. I said that economics uses scientific results. It does not do science. It's like if I have a company and I want to do build a better bouncy ball and I enlist the help of some chemists. I then use the new bouncy material that the chemists developed and make millions of dollars for my business, but I have not done any science of my own nor is my business scientific.
So economists might enlist the help of psychologists and the psychologists do science and then economists might use the results that psychologists give them, but the economists themselves have nothing to do with the scientific aspect of this collaboration, nor is what they're doing properly called "science". If anything, it's "delegating".

Not at all, it's kind of like those fairground games of guessing the weight of a cow, sure there's accurate predictions, many based on experience of cows and their weight but, in the final analysis, there's an element of luck in being right.


Sure, but that still doesn't mean that it's not scientific. One thing that makes it scientific is its ability to adapt, and it can keep growing, and becoming more and more accurate. Economics is very young, and has a very long way to go.


Go on then, genuinely curious, name me one, one you can bet your house on each and every time.


Name an activity that is constantly repeated? Most market activity is obviously constantly repeated as each day begins.


At most you can say 'extremely likely to', not '100% guaranteed to'.

The same is true for a huge amount of sciences.

How is it nonsensical? I think that you think it's nonsensical because you are not reading what I am writing correctly. I said that economics uses scientific results. It does not do science. It's like if I have a company and I want to do build a better bouncy ball and I enlist the help of some chemists. I then use the new bouncy material that the chemists developed and make millions of dollars for my business, but I have not done any science of my own nor is my business scientific.

Ok, this post suggests you have no idea how the study of economics actually works. I assumed you had some knowledge, as otherwise you wouldn't be making strong assertions about it.

This is a) exactly what economics often does and b) not at all 'completely accurate predictions', just like horse racing betting can never be completely accurate.

You have yet to give me an example of economics that involves controlled experiments. You have only given me psych and we're not currently disputing whether or not psych is a science.

That would be using the science of physics to come to this hypothesis. Is geology now not a science?

Well, I could also argue that chemistry is all physics too. Geology, chemistry and astronomy are all very related to physics. Geology and chemistry are much more approximate (and astronomy can be too at times, but if you're doing molecular spectroscopy, you're into nitty gritty physics). They are sciences but they are still all under the same sort of big physics umbrella.

Ok, this post suggests you have no idea how the study of economics actually works. I assumed you had some knowledge, as otherwise you wouldn't be making strong assertions about it.

Then enlighten me. Give me one example of economics being a science that is not actually psychology. So far all you've done is given me an example of something that is definitely not science and then stated that economists use scientific results. Give me some falsifiable predictions and some proposed experiments to test these predictions.

Also, how exactly does my post demonstrate that I have no idea how the study of economics actually works? Using statistics does not mean that you're doing science. You haven't told me anything at all about any economic predictions which are testable, repeatable and falsifiable... so what do you expect?

edit: also, I haven't assumed that you knew anything at all about science, the philosophy of science or what it means for something to be scientific. If I had made a prediction about this, you would be supporting it heavily.

edit2: note, if I had made a prediction about this, I would not exactly be doing science, but I could use this as a starting place. I could, for instance, evaluate the opinions of what it means to be a science from scientists and non-scientists and how the opinion of what constitutes a science varies from group to group. In which case, based on this initial test case, I would perhaps make a hypothesis like "Economics majors are more likely than non-Economics (possibly replace with "Science") majors to consider Economics a science" and then I would write up an appropriate questionnaire, gather a large enough sample size and fit some chi^2's to the result... and I would be doing more science than you do in economics. If I wanted to try and determine the attitudes which lead to this trend... I would possibly guess it's due to the glory and prestige that economics majors assume scientists have, but this would require much study before even making that a solid sort of hypothesis.

You have yet to give me an example of economics that involves controlled experiments. You have only given me psych and we're not currently disputing whether or not psych is a science.


Firstly, I dispute that science actually requires controlled experiments. There are many other ways to test and falsify theories, other than laboratory experiments. Secondly, since a large part of economics is the study of human interaction and responses to situations involving options of utility, your essentially saying that all microeconomics is actually not economics at all, but psychology, and statistical modelling of psychological interactions. This is such a ridiculous claim, it honestly is 'economics is not economics'.


Well, I could also argue that chemistry is all physics too. Geology, chemistry and astronomy are all very related to physics. Geology and chemistry are much more approximate (and astronomy can be too at times, but if you're doing molecular spectroscopy, you're into nitty gritty physics). They are sciences but they are still all under the same sort of big physics umbrella.

You didn't answer the question. Where does geology EVER do anything that you could call 'science of its own', if it doesn't, then geology is by your standards not a science.

Dakini, what is required for a subject to be scientific (in your opinion)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science#Social_theory_and_research_methods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Wars

Also, does this clear anything up? -

The term behavioural sciences is often confused with the term social sciences. Though these two broad areas are interrelated and study systematic processes of behaviour, they differ on their level of scientific analysis of various dimensions of behaviour. Behavioural sciences essentially investigate the decision processes and communication strategies within and between organisms in a social system. This involves fields like psychology and social neuroscience, among others.

In contrast, Social sciences study the structural-level processes of a social system and its impact on social processes and social organization. They typically include fields like sociology, economics, history, public health, anthropology, and political science (E. D. Klemke, R. Hollinger and A. D. Kline, eds., 1988).

Also, does this clear anything up? -
Not really. It tells me that behavioural science, psychology and neuroscience are sciences. Nothing at all about economics.

Not really. It tells me that behavioural science, psychology and neuroscience are sciences. Nothing at all about economics.

So this.. "In contrast, Social sciences study the structural-level processes of a social system and its impact on social processes and social organization. They typically include fields like sociology, economics, history, public health, anthropology, and political science (E. D. Klemke, R. Hollinger and A. D. Kline, eds., 1988)."

..doesn't tell you anything?

Also, much economic empirical testing is done through econometrics -

here is a vague wiki article on it, although it's not particularly good, it's a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econometrics

Firstly, I dispute that science actually requires controlled experiments.

It does require repeatable experiments and ideally these should be controlled. You wouldn't advocate taking a drug that hadn't been a part of a double blind study involving a placebo.

There are many other ways to test and falsify theories, other than laboratory experiments.

Yes. Double blind studies, control groups, large sample sizes (which are sampled as a representative of the population), examining the different variables, restricting as many variables as possible... which of these do economists use in their experiments?

Secondly, since a large part of economics is the study of human interaction and responses to situations involving options of utility, your essentially saying that all microeconomics is actually not economics at all, but psychology, and statistical modelling of psychological interactions. This is such a ridiculous claim, it honestly is 'economics is not economics'.

You haven't showed me anything that you claim is micro-economics that isn't more accurately described by psychology and you haven't showed me anything that indicates that micro-economists do anything other than use the results that psychologists obtain.

You didn't answer the question. Where does geology EVER do anything that you could call 'science of its own', if it doesn't, then geology is by your standards not a science.

No, geology is a science because it is possible to make falsifiable predictions which can be tested in tests which can be controlled and repeated.

So this.. "In contrast, Social sciences study the structural-level processes of a social system and its impact on social processes and social organization. They typically include fields like sociology, economics, history, public health, anthropology, and political science (E. D. Klemke, R. Hollinger and A. D. Kline, eds., 1988)."

..doesn't tell you anything?
It tells me that economics is considered a social science here.

I don't consider social sciences to be sciences. Note that I didn't list the list which contained social sciences... I reproduced the list that contained real sciences which are mentioned as being distinct from social sciences. Note the words "in contrast". Reading things before posting them as evidence to support your position is usually a good idea.

So this.. "In contrast, Social sciences study the structural-level processes of a social system and its impact on social processes and social organization. They typically include fields like sociology, economics, history, public health, anthropology, and political science (E. D. Klemke, R. Hollinger and A. D. Kline, eds., 1988)."

..doesn't tell you anything?

Yes, it tells me that's it's distinct, it's lumped in with history, political science, sociology...

Dakini, what is required for a subject to be scientific (in your opinion)?
I defined them somewhere around page six. It's a bit of a lazy definition... and I actually need to get to bed now so I'm not looking it up and reproducing it. It's probably just about where you come in, maybe a bit before.

I would say that in order for something to be considered scientific, it has to involve a falsifiable prediction (which is to say a prediction which can in theory be proven false) at the very least. It would also have to generally follow the scientific method and involve some sort of repeatable empirical experiment/observation which supports or refutes the theoretical prediction.
It also means that if a prediction of a theory is shown to be incorrect through repeatable (properly conducted) empirical experiment or observation, then the theory needs to be revised or abandoned.
Since it is at best difficult and at worst impossible to set up an economic experiment, one is left with observations, but one has no real way of isolating all the variables so one cannot do proper science. One cannot exactly repeat the experiment either. The best one can really do is statistical guesswork and try to avoid assuming causation when there is simply a correlation. There are probably more reasons economics is not scientific, but it's late and I'm tired.

Ah yes, I lied, I'm not so lazy that I won't look it up. Here it is. Now for bed.

Also, I meant to say "which can support or refute the theoretical prediction" at the end of the first paragraph. (to clarify)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science?qsrc=2888

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

No matter what our individual opinions of "what science is", the social sciences can certainly be included.

Yes. Double blind studies, control groups, large sample sizes (which are sampled as a representative of the population), examining the different variables, restricting as many variables as possible... which of these do economists use in their experiments?


I've given you a wiki page on econometrics, a non-psychological aspect of economics.


You haven't showed me anything that you claim is micro-economics that isn't more accurately described by psychology and you haven't showed me anything that indicates that micro-economists do anything other than use the results that psychologists obtain.

You haven't shown me anything that you claim is geology that isn't more accurately described as physics and chemistry, and you haven't showed me anything that geologists do anything other than use the results of physicists and chemists.


No, geology is a science because it is possible to make falsifiable predictions

Same with economics.


which can be tested

Same with economics.


in tests which can be controlled and repeated.

A controlled test is not a requirement for science, as long as you are testing the hypothesis with results that can falsify it.

I don't consider social sciences to be sciences. Note that I didn't list the list which contained social sciences... I reproduced the list that contained real sciences which are mentioned as being distinct from social sciences. Note the words "in contrast". Reading things before posting them as evidence to support your position is usually a good idea.

Hahaha, erm... it only made a distinction between behavioural sciences and social sciences. It NEVER made a claim about which science is more scientific and 'real'.

Yes, it tells me that's it's distinct, it's lumped in with history, political science, sociology...

Distinct from behavioural sciences, nobody was disputing that.

Also note that I'm only a first year economics student who has barely even broken the surface, please do not base your judgements on what I can provide.

Then enlighten me. Give me one example of economics being a science that is not actually psychology.

Have you ever heard of the Phillips curve? It is a curve that shows the hypothesis that unemployment will be low when inflation is high and vice versa (not the exact hypothesis but it explains it well enough). Now in order to prove this hypothesis unlike what you ma believe it wasn't simply stated and then accepted as fact year after year over a number of decades the inflation rate and the unemployment rate were measured together, and what was shown? It was shown that this is indeed correct, when inflation is high unemployment will be low and vice versa. Now this has been developed when the circumstances have changed and what economics also does not only answering the what and how questions but it also will answer the why question, as in why does this happen. Nothing to do with psychology in there at all.

Have you ever heard of the Phillips curve? It is a curve that shows the hypothesis that unemployment will be low when inflation is high and vice versa (not the exact hypothesis but it explains it well enough). Now in order to prove this hypothesis unlike what you ma believe it wasn't simply stated and then accepted as fact year after year over a number of decades the inflation rate and the unemployment rate were measured together, and what was shown? It was shown that this is indeed correct, when inflation is high unemployment will be low and vice versa. Now this has been developed when the circumstances have changed and what economics also does not only answering the what and how questions but it also will answer the why question, as in why does this happen. Nothing to do with psychology in there at all.

Zimbabwe disagrees with you.

It was shown that this is indeed correct

Ooooo, hmm. I'm not really sure that's correct actually, the correlation has shown to be not that strong, if not false. It's a very old theory anyway.

Zimbabwe disagrees with you.

And in many other places. In other words, falsified.

Sociology has many observable hypotheses.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

Ooooo, hmm. I'm not really sure that's correct actually, the correlation has shown to be not that strong, if not false. It's a very old theory anyway.

Which is why I said that it has been developed after this was done. I am about to go out so I don't have time to tell you about what was changed about the theory, but it is generally correct.

But hey this is a theory, and it was shown by expermation and observation that to prove it, and now this theory has been reexamined and a new theory has been developed because of it that shows and proves how this theory is wrong and a new one taken place. Wouldn't you say that is what happens in science?

I am sure being in your first year you will be introduced about the Phillips curve and the changes to it.

TBH, I don't really care if economics is a science or not. I just don't want people to underestimate how rigorous and recursive economics can be.

Wouldn't you say that is what happens in science?


Yes indeed.


I am sure being in your first year you will be introduced about the Phillips curve and the changes to it.

Yeah I have been, in a lecture regarding the history of modern macro economics.

It's interesting how in this whole thread, not a single example of any publication or academic paper by an economist has been analysed to show how unscientific it is. That would be one of the first things I would do if I was arguing that it was unscientific.

It's interesting how in this whole thread, not a single example of any publication or academic paper by an economist has been analysed to show how unscientific it is. That would be one of the first things I would do if I was arguing that it was unscientific.
If I wanted to do that, all I would have to do is find paper about the same issue by various schools of thought about economics.

Thus is the issue with the social sciences. An issue can be observed and, due to the theory applied, be said to have different causality chains.

Last post before I go:

If I wanted to do that, all I would have to do is find paper about the same issue by various schools of thought about economics.

This world that some people espouse about the multiple schools of thoughts all having major conflicts with no general consensus is highly unrealistic. These days, almost every economist is either a moderate monetarists or moderate Keynesian, with their differences being not that substantial. They all agree with the modelling methods, what they disagree on is mainly the slope of some of the curves. The fact that there are disputes among economists however, does not in itself make their research unscientific. If anything, the constant re-evaluation and falsification attempts only make it more so. The only real dissidents regarding the models themselves are some Austrian economists


Thus is the issue with the social sciences. An issue can be observed and, due to the theory applied, be said to have different causality chains.

Which is why with economics, you start with only the very first links in the chains at the micro-economic level, and work up.


Seriously, in the last hundred and fifty or so years, do you not think that economists have thought about things like this? I mean come on!

This world that some people espouse about the multiple schools of thoughts all having major conflicts with no general consensus is highly unrealistic. These days, almost every economist is either a moderate monetarists or moderate Keynesian, with their differences being not that substantial. They all agree with the modelling methods, what they disagree on is mainly the slope of some of the curves. The fact that there are disputes among economists however, does not in itself make their research unscientific. If anything, the constant re-evaluation and falsification attempts only make it more so. The only real dissidents regarding the models themselves are some Austrian economists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_economics
Almost every economist now? Even discounting everything before classical economics still gives you a wide range of theories and schools to apply to a set of data. This is very different from the hard sciences where you generally don't have arguments about how a chemical reaction happened. I can find multiple statements for different causes for the Great Depression depending upon which economic school I apply.

Which is why with economics, you start with only the very first links in the chains at the micro-economic level, and work up.

Seriously, in the last hundred and fifty or so years, do you not think that economists have thought about things like this? I mean come on!
Then provide evidence of if FDR's New Deal extended or helped the Great Depression.

Look, I'm not trying to state the economics is not a science, I too study a social science (education) and whenever I get bored with classroom teaching, I plan to get that PhD and work on theory. So I am well aware that what both fields are attempting to do is explain very complex human behaviors. Because of the human factor, we don't have laws and rules that the natural sciences have. We also have to fudge a bit more, assume a bit more, and be more interested in the qualitative rather than the quantitative. That means both economics and education are not natural sciences, but that doesn't make them not sciences. You just have to keep that in mind though when measuring them up to the natural sciences.

Or, as I put it to my best friend (a chemical engineer); yes, his coursework was probably harder at his masters level than mine was at mine, and yes, this discipline is more structured and rigorous than mine. But when he was running an experiment, he had a fairly good idea of the rules and knew what would go boom and when to expect it. When I do one, my experiments have a tendency to go boom in interesting and unexpected ways and I have very little idea of the actual rules.

Have you ever heard of the Phillips curve? It is a curve that shows the hypothesis that unemployment will be low when inflation is high and vice versa (not the exact hypothesis but it explains it well enough). Now in order to prove this hypothesis unlike what you ma believe it wasn't simply stated and then accepted as fact year after year over a number of decades the inflation rate and the unemployment rate were measured together, and what was shown? It was shown that this is indeed correct, when inflation is high unemployment will be low and vice versa. Now this has been developed when the circumstances have changed and what economics also does not only answering the what and how questions but it also will answer the why question, as in why does this happen. Nothing to do with psychology in there at all.

please look up stagflation.

Have you ever heard of the Phillips curve? It is a curve that shows the hypothesis that unemployment will be low when inflation is high and vice versa (not the exact hypothesis but it explains it well enough). Now in order to prove this hypothesis unlike what you ma believe it wasn't simply stated and then accepted as fact year after year over a number of decades the inflation rate and the unemployment rate were measured together, and what was shown? It was shown that this is indeed correct, when inflation is high unemployment will be low and vice versa. Now this has been developed when the circumstances have changed and what economics also does not only answering the what and how questions but it also will answer the why question, as in why does this happen. Nothing to do with psychology in there at all.

Were you alive in the 70s? We had high unemployment and high inflation here in Australia. The same thing happened throughout most western economies. All thanks to OPEC ramping up the price of oil astronomically, killing economic activity and driving up prices simultaneously.

I think the study of economies can be approached in a scientific way, but not all that is called economics is of that quality. A lot of it to me seems to be based on opinion or ideology rather than analysis.

Besides which, I'm right.

Beware... this sentence has a vague taste of Randianism! :p


Economics is not a science, because it is not based upon repeatable experimentation. It is an attempt to predict the future and justify the past/present based upon an ideology and the assumption that society and human beings function in a mechanical (though not necessarily rational) manner.

It depends on the definition of science we choose to use.

Sure, economics isn't a science in the Galileian meaning of it, that is: mathematical models of reality based on repeatable experimentation, with the principle of universality in time and space.
As that, the models of economics are clearly NOT AS RELIABLE as the models of Galileian sciences (like physics or chemistry).

I think this may be turning into semantics .
If you want to define a science as a discipline that applies the classical scientific method, then economics clearly doesn't even come close.
If you want to define science as anything that attempts to find meaning in collected data by applying statistical (and other) methods, then economics is indeed a science.
Of course, bookmakers and serious gamblers also qualify as scientists by that definition.
My own feeling is that if you keep broadening a definition it eventually becomes meaningless. Therefore I tend to prefer the classical definition of science, in which hypotheses are tested by repeatable experiment.
I think that the term 'Humanities' works well for the various social sciences that juggle far too many variables to design rigorous experiments.
However at the end of the day its just a word and if someone wants to give my bookie a B.Sc. I'm sure it will make her very happy.

Economics is more akin to magic, alchemy if you will, than science.


From my perspective, the whole economy is run by blind faith - consider eg. the current crisis where money doesn't move because there's a distinct lack of trust rather than lack of fundamental resources - and arcane principles instead of reason.


That's to be expected though and similar applies to, say, politics as well because people are not rational animals.

In a closed system economic sometimes works. When we move into the realm of macroeconomic it is educated guess work. There is of course alot of math and really pretty chart but mostly smoke and mirrors and the best mathematical models can only get about 60 to 70% accurate. There is some math in there, some business practices a little bit of statistics.
87% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Not much better than betting on a horse then.
Well, how do you test the standard model of physics? By building a large hadron collider and running it for a while. What if they don't find a Hicks Boson? That doesn't mean beyond doubt that it doesn't exist, it means that we may have hit a very unlikely scenario in which we don't detect one despite the probability for doing it being reasonably good. How long will it take physics textbooks all around the world to be changed, how long until there is a paradigm shift from the accepted view of the world as a result of one failed and imperfect experiment?

And don't get me started on string theory. The fact of the matter is that any claims regarding empirical knowledge and falsifiability as a result of the methods employed is just stupid. Few people arguing against economics as a meaningful, hard science have done their job properly and attacked what appears to me the obvious choice: the nature of the thing being observed itself.

As for a falsifiable hypothesis of economics: if a person has a set of things they'd like to have, and a ranking they assign to these things, and a budget with which to buy these things, then they will try to allocate that budget in such a way as to secure a set of things that will make them as happy as possible.

Is that psychology? Well, sorta. Economics is the science of choices, it seeks to analyse how people make choices and the results thereof. As such many fields, including psychology, are useful at times to answer economic questions.

Economics is more akin to magic, alchemy if you will, than science.


From my perspective, the whole economy is run by blind faith - consider eg. the current crisis where money doesn't move because there's a distinct lack of trust rather than lack of fundamental resources - and arcane principles instead of reason.


That's to be expected though and similar applies to, say, politics as well because people are not rational animals.

Funnily enough, the one seeming constant of fields such as economics is that the more accurately you can predict them, the more likely they'll soon blow up in your face.

The problem is that a bullish market propels itself due to sentiment, that the longer a rise continues, the more people invest in that rise and, at some point ,the skeptics are, one by one, invested as well. The disparity between actual value and invested value is, well, as witnessed by crazy price/earnings ratios we've seen over the last 30 years...

Neu Leonstein points to property as the bedrock of a [capitalist] society, and it's no surprise that huge defaults on the value of property means that the coming recession will be long and deep.

We were all invested in the value of property, whether we knew it or not, whether through pensions funds invested in blue chip companies or owning speculative property in Florida, regardless, the p/e ratio was highly over-valued.

It's easy to build models on, what was, 30 years of growth - a few v-shaped recessions along the way - but where was the clear cut case that lowering interest rates after the tech bust, lowering taxes, simply made people speculate more, fueled illusionary monetary growth and basically papered over the cracks.

Economy, much like climatology, is very open to cherry-picking precisely because economists are wrong so often, and the more accurate their models are, the more they rely on them and the less aware they are of the impending 'highly unlikely' event that throws all their models out the window.

It's very different to V = IR, consistent, eternal formulas with definite, testable answers.

please look up stagflation.

Were you alive in the 70s? We had high unemployment and high inflation here in Australia. The same thing happened throughout most western economies. All thanks to OPEC ramping up the price of oil astronomically, killing economic activity and driving up prices simultaneously.

Fucks sake, thank you very much you two. I just got home I was just going to check this out and not post unless someone said something that just had to be replyed to, thanks very much.

G&D: No, I will not look up stagflation I already know what it is thank you very much. Erri: No I wasn't that doesn't mean I don't know what happened in the 70's. Now this is exactly why I said in the post you both quoted it was proven not to be completely correct and was redeveloped and is now know as the expectations-augmented Phillips curve which now takes into account expected inflation as well. As I said in the post it was later developed and I repeated that in a post when replying to Hydesland too.

And guess what guys?

With the development of the Phillips curve by the incorporation of inflation expectations into it now allows us to explain stagflation. Now I wish I could find the graph to show this new curve for Australia between the years 1962-2004 but I can't so you guys if you feel like it can look it up the reference is Dornbusch, R 2006, Macroeconomics, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill, North Ryde Australia. Yes I had to ensure that I was using the correct terminology but hey that's better than relying on what I think I know.

Please! Take it easy on us Political Scientists
Funnily enough, the above is clear difference between US and European political studies; you're going to find very few, if any at all, politics departments calling their studies 'Political Science'; as far as I know, here isn't any major UK university that has a Political Science department.

Whether this is because of the po-mo's or not, I don't know.



87% of statistics are made up on the spot.
One in a million chances happen nine times out of ten.

Well, how do you test the standard model of physics? By building a large hadron collider and running it for a while. What if they don't find a Hicks Boson? That doesn't mean beyond doubt that it doesn't exist, it means that we may have hit a very unlikely scenario in which we don't detect one despite the probability for doing it being reasonably good.
Quite.

I know few scientists who doggedly follow Popper's view of science.

What I learnt:

Different disciplines of acquiring knowledge can be judged according to how 'hard' they are in terms of scientific rigour. So, behavioural psychology is a softer science than, say, the physics of statics.

But it's not that simple. Economics sometimes has studies that are quite rigourously scientifc, and then it has studies which are not so rigiourous, just like the physical sciences. So we can't even say that they line up nicely on a neat line from 'soft' to 'hard'.

So, at best we can say that generally speaking, economics tends to be sufficiently rigourous in its methodology to qualify as a behavioural science.

since irrational people tend to end up poor (in fact, in pure theory, they starve to death) and with little influence on aggregate outcomes.

Is this saying that the hundred of millions of people living in poverty worldwide today are irrational?

Is this saying that the hundred of millions of people living in poverty worldwide today are irrational?
No, it's not a two-way thing, it only works in one direction. One can be rational and then a hurricane destroys all your stuff and you're poor.

But if you're irrational (in the economic sense), for example you have intransitive preferences (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524908), then you will become poor very quickly.

What I learnt:

Different disciplines of acquiring knowledge can be judged according to how 'hard' they are in terms of scientific rigour. So, behavioural psychology is a softer science than, say, the physics of statics.

But it's not that simple. Economics sometimes has studies that are quite rigourously scientifc, and then it has studies which are not so rigiourous, just like the physical sciences. So we can't even say that they line up nicely on a neat line from 'soft' to 'hard'.

So, at best we can say that generally speaking, economics tends to be sufficiently rigourous in its methodology to qualify as a behavioural science.

^^ This is a very good analysis.

Ooooo, hmm. I'm not really sure that's correct actually, the correlation has shown to be not that strong, if not false. It's a very old theory anyway.

The Phillips curve is a great example of why it's hard to come up with eternal laws of economics. I'm looking in my textbook right now of two curves: Phillips' original, collecting data from 1861-1913, and one made a few years later, 1961-1969. Both are beautiful curves. It really does look like there is a trade off between unemployment and inflation.
Now I turn the page and I see the new Phillips' curve, from 1961-1990. It's a joke. It looks like a connect-the-dots game completed by someone who couldn't count. To derive any line of regression from it is mathematically impossible. What changed? Well, governments learned about the Phillips' curve...
In particle physics, you may not know where the particle is. But at least you know that once you learn you can't know where the particle is, the spiteful little particle isn't going to change it's behavior on you. People and governments are less helpful. When your subject reacts to your discoveries about it, it is nearly impossible to make any rules that stick.

The Phillips curve is a great example of why it's hard to come up with eternal laws of economics. I'm looking in my textbook right now of two curves: Phillips' original, collecting data from 1861-1913, and one made a few years later, 1961-1969. Both are beautiful curves. It really does look like there is a trade off between unemployment and inflation.
Now I turn the page and I see the new Phillips' curve, from 1961-1990. It's a joke. It looks like a connect-the-dots game completed by someone who couldn't count. To derive any line of regression from it is mathematically impossible. What changed? Well, governments learned about the Phillips' curve...
In particle physics, you may not know where the particle is. But at least you know that once you learn you can't know where the particle is, the spiteful little particle isn't going to change it's behavior on you. People and governments are less helpful. When your subject reacts to your discoveries about it, it is nearly impossible to make any rules that stick.


I suggest you keep reading your text book. You are correct that graph is all over the place and is something you would send into Mr Squiggle. But that is under the old theory the new and refined theory actually takes into account anticipated inflation that is what was missing from the rule, it was further investigated as to why the old one wasn't true and a new rule to better explain why was formulated. I don't know about you but I would say science does that quite often. If your textbook is any good it will show you a new Phillips curve with this data and the curve will indeed be downward sloping.

Actually NL, I want to know what you meant by government's figured out the Phillp's curve?.

Edmund Phelps who won the noble prize in economics said the Phillips was only short term anyways. And that any decrease in unemployment by lowering the interest rates. The long term curve isn't even a curve its a vertical line.

Edmund Phelps who won the noble prize in economics said the Phillips was only short term anyways. And that any decrease in unemployment by lowering the interest rates. The long term curve isn't even a curve its a vertical line.

And the short term curve is horizontal. Just like the Aggregate supply curves, in fact both the short term and long term curves are exactly the same. In fact in order to derive the aggregate supply curve of an economy we will use the Phillip's curve along with Okun's law and the link between the price that firms charge to their costs. But in order to understand how to do this we need to properly understand the relationship between inflation and unemployment thus why we have the Phillip's curve.

In fact in order to derive the aggregate supply curve of an economy we will use the Phillip's curve along with Okun's law and the link between the price that firms charge to their costs.
That's not really how it's done anymore. People don't estimate aggregate supply curves from econometric relationships anymore, they try to go from first principles by constructing equations for the behaviour of individual agents and estimating the coefficients in those. Plain Keynesian AD-SD or IS-LM models are good for getting people to understand the mechanics of the macroeconomy, but they're not really the basis for professional or academic macroeconomics anymore.

1. I got an A-
2. I never skip class. I might turn up 20 minutes late, dead drunk, bleeding from a head wound, not having done the homework, and without any of the materials, but I will be there.

Besides which, I'm right. Economics is not a science, because it is not based upon repeatable experimentation. It is an attempt to predict the future and justify the past/present based upon an ideology and the assumption that society and human beings function in a mechanical (though not necessarily rational) manner.
A physicist can say, "There is a natural tendency for objects of mass to attract one another, this force is called gravity and it prevents you from flying just by flapping your arms." He may then pick up a pencil and drop it a few dozen times to prove his point.
An economist, on the other hand, can say, "Protectionism doesn't work." When asked for proof, all he can cite is ideology, incomplete models of human behavior, or cherry pick a few historical occasions which, when viewed in a specific interpretive light, seem to demonstrate flaws within protectionism.

I don't think economics is strictly scientific. And even if someone attempted to do it "scientifically", I think there are far too many uncontrollable variables for a theory of economics to be "scientifically proven", in terms of a "law". On the other hand, economics does frequently rely on science for the data which justifies particular theories.

That's not really how it's done anymore. People don't estimate aggregate supply curves from econometric relationships anymore, they try to go from first principles by constructing equations for the behaviour of individual agents and estimating the coefficients in those. Plain Keynesian AD-SD or IS-LM models are good for getting people to understand the mechanics of the macroeconomy, but they're not really the basis for professional or academic macroeconomics anymore.

I know it is a basic way but yeah. I am surprised that this is all you have picked apart from my explanations, I am sure I have made some more mistakes and a few dodgy ones at that.

I know it is a basic way but yeah. I am surprised that this is all you have picked apart from my explanations, I am sure I have made some more mistakes and a few dodgy ones at that.
Well, I'm not here to make anyone look bad.

But the Phillips Curve is just a dodgy piece of theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_critique). The reason monetary policy works on output in the short run is because prices are sticky, the only way it works to change anything, including inflation, in the long run is by adjusting expectations. To me the original is a classic piece of old Keynesian analysis: "hey, there's a correlation here, let's exploit it". It's exactly the sort of thing that Fiddlebottoms had such a problem with in the OP.

That's not to say that there may not be such a relationship there, or that it wouldn't be possible to build a Phillips Curve. But you have to do it from first principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_stochastic_general_equilibrium), by looking at the way price changes affect the behaviour of firms and individuals and in turn how these go on to affect unemployment, and/or vice versa.

Well, I'm not here to make anyone look bad.

I should never have asked. :tongue: Nah it's good to be looked over and corrected if need be. I don't mind people informing me of my mistakes or correct something I got wrong, I don't want to live in ignorance for my entire life.

But the Phillips Curve is just a dodgy piece of theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_critique). The reason monetary policy works on output in the short run is because prices are sticky, the only way it works to change anything, including inflation, in the long run is by adjusting expectations. To me the original is a classic piece of old Keynesian analysis: "hey, there's a correlation here, let's exploit it". It's exactly the sort of thing that Fiddlebottoms had such a problem with in the OP.

That's not to say that there may not be such a relationship there, or that it wouldn't be possible to build a Phillips Curve. But you have to do it from first principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_stochastic_general_equilibrium), by looking at the way price changes affect the behaviour of firms and individuals and in turn how these go on to affect unemployment, and/or vice versa.

Cheers mate, I am about to head out but I will ensure that I read over this in the near future. But then in regards to the Lucas critique I can understand that, but isn't that why the newer theory is a bit more sound, after all government's can't really influence people's expectations that much can they? Well I suppose they can a bit, if the government goes out saying there is doom and gloom then maybe the economy will start to fall anyway because people start believing them and so it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy, or if they want to hide it they can beat it up in attempt to keep demand high.

Well I suppose they can a bit, if the government goes out saying there is doom and gloom then maybe the economy will start to fall anyway because people start believing them and so it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy, or if they want to hide it they can beat it up in attempt to keep demand high.
I was talking more in regards to monetary policy. The reason the old Phillips Curve broke down was that policymakers always had an incentive to create a little more inflation for a little less unemployment. So New Limacon was right - the reason the Phillips Curve broke down was to a large part that governments learned about it.

That's why I keep going on about the importance of independent central banks concerned primarily with price stability, with strict target bands much like in Australia. Or at least I was, until now. I'll know more after my thesis is finished.

my limit of economic talk has been reached. my half finished history of economics level fo training has been exceeded.

Economics, I feel, can be a great tool for describing and analysing what happened in the past, but is a poor, if useless, tool for predicting the future; especially the not-immediate future.

I can agree with that fully, Economics is great for discovering past events as well as past problems that came from factors in the economy, but unfortunately, its terrible at predicting the future. We do have some method of predicting a future economic crisis or boom, but in the short term, the market could make circles around projections.

I suggest you keep reading your text book. You are correct that graph is all over the place and is something you would send into Mr Squiggle. But that is under the old theory the new and refined theory actually takes into account anticipated inflation that is what was missing from the rule, it was further investigated as to why the old one wasn't true and a new rule to better explain why was formulated. I don't know about you but I would say science does that quite often. If your textbook is any good it will show you a new Phillips curve with this data and the curve will indeed be downward sloping.
Right, if you add anticipated inflation, it does indeed fix itself. But assuming "anticipated inflation" is even measurable (it seems like kind of a patch), before the 1970s, it was unnecessary. The circumstances required a change in the theory.

Actually NL, I want to know what you meant by government's figured out the Phillp's curve?.
The government itself didn't, but what Phillips discovered wasn't kept secret. Now, maybe it was a stretch to say that affected fiscal and monetary policy, because I think the federal government, at least in the US, would have done what it did even if Phillips didn't make his discovery. But the point remains: as economies change, so does economics.

I don't think economics is strictly scientific. And even if someone attempted to do it "scientifically", I think there are far too many uncontrollable variables for a theory of economics to be "scientifically proven", in terms of a "law". On the other hand, economics does frequently rely on science for the data which justifies particular theories.
In general, the opportunities to test economic theories rigorously and empirically are not ones economists jump at.

Nor are there too many uncontrolled variables to start testing them. We have an enormous data set to work with and very powerful statistical tools. We could easily have much more data.

Economics, I feel, can be a great tool for describing and analysing what happened in the past, but is a poor, if useless, tool for predicting the future; especially the not-immediate future.
Intuitively, I think you're right, but sometimes I wonder if economics gets a bad rap just because it doesn't predict the important stuff. I mean, looking at a graph of the Dow Jones, an economist could have a good guess about where it will be tomorrow. If the graph if over one-hundred years, he or she could have a reasonable guess about where it will be ten years from now.
No one pays that much attention because, frankly, it's not too difficult to figure out: anyone with a straightedge has those predictive powers. It's just when the economist says the stock market has reached an all-time high plateau right before a crash that people remember. I have the same sympathy for meteorologists.

1. I got an A-
2. I never skip class. I might turn up 20 minutes late, dead drunk, bleeding from a head wound, not having done the homework, and without any of the materials, but I will be there.

Besides which, I'm right. Economics is not a science, because it is not based upon repeatable experimentation. It is an attempt to predict the future and justify the past/present based upon an ideology and the assumption that society and human beings function in a mechanical (though not necessarily rational) manner.
A physicist can say, "There is a natural tendency for objects of mass to attract one another, this force is called gravity and it prevents you from flying just by flapping your arms." He may then pick up a pencil and drop it a few dozen times to prove his point.
An economist, on the other hand, can say, "Protectionism doesn't work." When asked for proof, all he can cite is ideology, incomplete models of human behavior, or cherry pick a few historical occasions which, when viewed in a specific interpretive light, seem to demonstrate flaws within protectionism.

In other words, you have a disagreement with someone or something related to Economics, so obviously that must mean it's an illegitimate scientific (well a social science) field. Or just plain don't understand it.

While we are on the subject I don't think computer science should be allowed either. Physics, chemistry, biology are sciences. Pretty much anything with an engineering department. Electrical is based on mostly physics and a very little bit of chemistry, mechanical is physics, civil is based on physics and a fair bit of chemistry.

Well, 'computer science' would be basically mathematics applied to algorithms and information theory. Whether it's a science depends on whether you consider mathematics to be a science (I do, some people don't).

Sociology has many observable hypotheses.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

That's statistics, not sociology.

TBH, I don't really care if economics is a science or not. I just don't want people to underestimate how rigorous and recursive economics can be.

Why 'recursive', out of interest?

I was talking more in regards to monetary policy. The reason the old Phillips Curve broke down was that policymakers always had an incentive to create a little more inflation for a little less unemployment. So New Limacon was right - the reason the Phillips Curve broke down was to a large part that governments learned about it.

That's not exactly what New Limacon said.

In particle physics, you may not know where the particle is. But at least you know that once you learn you can't know where the particle is, the spiteful little particle isn't going to change it's behavior on you. People and governments are less helpful. When your subject reacts to your discoveries about it, it is nearly impossible to make any rules that stick.

Other parties are significant players in the economy ... other parties than government.

If governments apply an understanding of economics to gain their ends (politically favourable ends like low unemployment or growing tax revenue without specific tax hikes) then surely the economics graduates who apply that knowledge in the private sector "exploit the correlation" to at least equal effect in the private sector?

Which is where most of them go.

Intuitively, I think you're right, but sometimes I wonder if economics gets a bad rap just because it doesn't predict the important stuff.
Yes, I wouldn't want my criticisms blown out of proportion.

I'm certainly not saying economics is useless; it's a great tool.

Other parties are significant players in the economy ... other parties than government.
Well, yes. Here's the logic:

π = πe − b(U − Un)
(where π is inflation, πe is expected inflation, U is unemployment and Un is the neutral unemployment rate. b is just some coefficient)

Policymakers started by doing things to raise π, because that would decrease U. Those things would usually include easy monetary policy and a bit of extra government spending as well. That worked until people (ie the private sector, econ grads and others) adjusted πe, which hadn't been a feature in the original Phillips Curve. So workers asked for wage increases, producers raised prices and a spiral set in. In that environment, the government suddenly found that there was an ongoing increase in inflation that wasn't correlated with unemployment anymore and their policy trade-off broke down.

A bit of an oil price shock and a few other negative impacts on the economy, and you ended up with stagflation. And that didn't get resolved until Volcker took out the sledge hammer and put interest rates up so high that people finally ended up adjusting their inflation expectations back to a reasonable level.

So the initial push came from the government, while private actors changed their behaviour in response. But I would argue that the latter didn't have much to do with the Phillips Curve being discovered, but that they would have responded in this way to that kind of government policy anyways.

I was talking more in regards to monetary policy. The reason the old Phillips Curve broke down was that policymakers always had an incentive to create a little more inflation for a little less unemployment. So New Limacon was right - the reason the Phillips Curve broke down was to a large part that governments learned about it.

Ah yes definitely, IIRC that was a reason for the economic problems during the 80's in Australia with the government of the day setting monetary policy in an attempt to get the objectives they wanted and for political gain.

That's why I keep going on about the importance of independent central banks concerned primarily with price stability, with strict target bands much like in Australia. Or at least I was, until now. I'll know more after my thesis is finished.

Well, that is something I to would be saying that we need an independent central bank. I will await with interest your findings.

Humans have a tendency to do the same things in the same situations.

Just like how an apple tends to do the same things in the same situations.

Economics is a science. Economics is the science of how market systems work, and how humans and societies act in certain market situations. It's really quite simple.

I declare economics a branch of history. furthermore economics majors shall be subservient to history majors.

I declare economics a branch of history. furthermore economics majors shall be subservient to history majors.

I can't read what the dude on the left in your avatar says, looks like "we can't balance the budget by borrowing a trillion dollars h34n cmmn!"

I can't read what the dude on the left in your avatar says, looks like "we can't balance the budget by borrowing a trillion dollars h34n cmmn!"

we cant balance the budget by borrowing a trillion dollars from china.

we cant balance the budget by borrowing a trillion dollars from china.

ahh, and what does it say on his top?

ahh, and what does it say on his top?

his overcoat. Congress.