09 May 10
Originally posted by PalynkaI think economics is a social science. By which I mean it uses scientific methods and methodology to some extent, but not to the extent that a 'full' science would (or at least ought to). It overlaps scientific and non-scientific domains. Some sub-areas of economics may lie completely within the boundary, and some will probably lie outside (and I'd admit I don't know the discipline well enough to give specific examples).
Did you change your mind about this being science or about economics being a science?
This example I'd consider as one of those applications of scientific method. 'Science' within that particular context, but it sounds like they may want to apply it beyond the point where pure science would allow it.
10 May 10
Originally posted by mtthwI just read this thread.
I think economics is a social science. By which I mean it uses scientific methods and methodology to some extent, but not to the extent that a 'full' science would (or at least ought to). It overlaps scientific and non-scientific domains. Some sub-areas of economics may lie completely within the boundary, and some will probably lie outside (and I'd admit I ...[text shortened]... sounds like they may want to apply it beyond the point where pure science would allow it.
Please look up the definition of social science! Social science is science about people. Not "random, waffly, pseudo non-science that's kind of sciencey but not when I say it's not." It's science about people! Which inherently means that it's difficult to control all variables in a satisfactory way. Economics is a perfect example of a social science, as it tries to distil the complexity of economic exchange into measurable pieces which can then be subject to theoretical advances bolstered by experimental data. Where economics falls short is that the very subject matter (human economic exchange) it studies is fiendishly complex and simply not readily amenable to the scientific method without sacrificing a large amount of the richness of human experience that it attempts to understand.
Economists should not just be dismissed as pseudoscientists because they study a difficult subject though. The _results_ of economic science (rational utility, the rational agent, etc, etc, etc.) are far from perfect because the science is far from perfect. BUT, 'science' is simply the testing of hypotheses using methods that are repeatable by others. The particular domain we choose to study scientifically does not modify whether or not what we do is science.
And no, I'm not an economist, nor particularly enamoured with economics.
10 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by kyngjI know what social science is - I used to work in a social science department. And I disagree.
I just read this thread.
Please look up the definition of social science! Social science is science about people. Not "random, waffly, pseudo non-science that's kind of sciencey but not when I say it's not." It's science about people! Which inherently means that it's difficult to control all variables in a satisfactory way. Economics is a perfect example o is science.
And no, I'm not an economist, nor particularly enamoured with economics.
The very fact that it's difficult to control all the variables causes the problems. If the disciplines kept to the scientific method (the definition of a science) they simply wouldn't be able to make enough progress to be useful. So they use some of the techniques, but they also use other methodologies.
If you just get over the idea that something has to be a science to be useful or credible, none of this is a problem. It's just a matter of classification. Nowhere did I call economics or any other social science "random" or "waffly".
12 May 10
Originally posted by mtthwScience and the scientific method are not confined to laboratory experiments (although it's a common misperception).
I know what social science is - I used to work in a social science department. And I disagree.
The very fact that it's difficult to control all the variables causes the problems. If the disciplines kept to the scientific method (the definition of a science) they simply wouldn't be able to make enough progress to be useful. So they use some of the techniq ...[text shortened]... fication. Nowhere did I call economics or any other social science "random" or "waffly".
What part of the "scientific method" is economics not able to keep to?
13 May 10
I wouldn't say it's "not able to" (it has trouble with repeatability, but then, I admit, so do such sciences as geology and astrophysics). I just think that, because of the situations it's trying to model, that approach is inherently limited. Don't economists use qualitative methods as well? I'm certain that other social scientists do.
14 May 10
Originally posted by sonhouseA 'new light'? I wonder if these researchers are aware that normative ethicists have employed collective action problem models for a very long time to both describe the evolution of moral communities and attempt to show the conditions under which it is instrumentally rational to abide by social norms or to free-ride. See David Gauthier's book "Morals by Agreement", published about twenty-five years ago.
http://www.physorg.com/news192381642.html
This puts moral development in a new light.
20 May 10
Originally posted by mtthwI'll quote a post here:
I know what social science is - I used to work in a social science department. And I disagree.
The very fact that it's difficult to control all the variables causes the problems. If the disciplines kept to the scientific method (the definition of a science) they simply wouldn't be able to make enough progress to be useful. So they use some of the techniq ...[text shortened]... fication. Nowhere did I call economics or any other social science "random" or "waffly".
"Side-stepping the question of whether economics is a science (and I don't think it is)".
While you may be right that economics is often not good science, you can't declare it not to be a science on the basis of what you've said. Science is much narrower a term than you're giving it credit for. It is the repeatable testing of hypotheses either by controlling factors (Experimentation), observing interactions (Field Work) or simulation (Modeling). By this definition, economics is 100% science. Because the results are not replicable does not make it unscientific. The method is repeatable, which makes it science. Obviously being unable to control for myriad factors has effects on the interpretability of the results (and the quality of the sciencE), but it does not make the method unscientific.
20 May 10
Originally posted by kyngjYeah, that quote's already been brought up. May I refer you to all my other posts in this thread to explain why I don't agree with you. 🙂
I'll quote a post here:
"Side-stepping the question of whether economics is a science (and I don't think it is)".
While you may be right that economics is often not good science, you can't declare it not to be a science on the basis of what you've said. Science is much narrower a term than you're giving it credit for. It is the repeatable testing of ...[text shortened]... e results (and the quality of the sciencE), but it does not make the method unscientific.