|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't mean to imply that. Degree of uncertainty doesn't mean it's uncertain, at least as far as we use "uncertain" colloquially. I brought it up because a chunk of what we (me you rilla) end up debating on this forum involves the idea that economics is just so incredibly uncertain that it's useless.
I certainly don't think economics is useless. If anything, I think it's ridiculously complex, and even though a lot of diligent and intelligent people have been working on it, and some of them are quite well-funded, the ability to reduce the complexity is still very limited.
I also think that you kind of misunderstand science it when you call economics a science.
Whether or not something is considered "a science" has no relation to the fact that the scientific process is a part of literally every field of study, or at least can be.
Whether or not something is a science has no relation to its utility to humans. Whether or not mathematics is a science is a funny debate, and it all hinges on the fact that theoretical mathematicians and theoretical physicists do very similar work, with only slightly different motivations.
So when I disagree with your assessment that economics is a science, that is not an implication that economics is useless... just different.
If nothing else, you've shown me that the scientific process is more a part of economics than I was aware.
|
Reply With Quote