Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
I've never said this and I don't think anybody has. The level of certainty in economics is less than in chemistry. My comments focus on dispelling the suggestion that this means there is little certainty in economics.
That's not the reason to believe there is little certainty in economics.

This is:

Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
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.

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.
When I say uncertainty above, I mean that different economists emphasize different elements in a system to draw conclusions about supply and demand. When they apply these conclusions to a graph, they produce many different curves. There is no conclusive argument for which curve best represents the reality.

They can go back, after the fact and find the graphs which actually made reasonable predictions which eventually were observed. They use this to produce new theories about how to make predictions. However, this process has not yet led to a clearly stated, falsifiable theory which makes observable predictions.

To the extent that economists can predict any changes in economics, there is merit to calling it a science.
However, I have yet to see any convincing evidence that this occurs on anything but a micro-scale. I.e. A mighty clever entrepreneur may be able to see an economic niche unfilled and then fill it. However, the economists can not tell us where or when the niches occur, nor what is needed to fill them. At most they can give a broad description of niches.

I have yet to see any state-level predictions which bear the predicted results. I see a whole lot of IF A, THEN B, but then C happens and the economists say, "This was always an option." Fine. It was an option. Then the original statement was either a lie or ill-conceived propaganda. Neither gives the field any credibility as a science.