|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
Just because controlled experimentation is easier in chemistry than in economics doesn't give chemistry science status and economics not-science status.
This is true.
There are many other reasons that economics is not a hard scientific field.
Science is a rigorous methodology by which we, as individuals, strive never to be misled, even by ourselves. It is a system which produces falsifiable statements, which have not been shown to be false, under any known, verifiable, repeatable method. This gives rise to a rigorous use of language which demands thorough definition for each key term under investigation. Ultimately, science is about making clear definitions into clear statements, and not being fooled into believing a false statement.
The benefit of science is to make predictions which bear out future observations. The ultimate goal of science is to allow humans to predict the future, insofar as the future can be predicted.
Whether or not a field can produce controlled experiments can be a severe impediment to establishing a rigid language, with precise definitions. This can make the process of producing falsifiable statements cumbersome.
***
I think it's fair to say that, no matter how old the texts on the subject are, the field of Economics is in its infancy. There is no widespread agreement among economists (even nationally, let alone globally) on anything beyond the most loose and broad definitions. There is still rich debate on the most fundamental principles. I.e. economists agree that supply and demand are things, and that a graph of a supply-demand curve is representative of reality. However, the level of uncertainty in the specific shape of the curve and how it has/will change over time is generally off the charts for any practical (predictive) application.
There's nothing wrong with being in the baby steps of understanding the beast that is the entire notion of "understanding the movement of resources, what motivates humans to do so, and the consequences of such."
What's wrong is claiming that these initial statements have undergone the same level of widespread scrutiny as chemistry. What's wrong is making predictions which do not bear out future observations, then using the same data and theory to explain that the conclusion was implied anyway. This is what makes it a soft science.
A hard science must produce deterministic results. If the outcome is not as predicted, then either more data must be incorporated or the theory needs to be changed or both.
Economics may someday be considered a hard science, but right now, it's just not. This is in no way a disparaging remark about economists. It means they've grabbed the tail of a much more elusive dragon than that of a physicist or chemist.
|
Reply With Quote