Is Economics a Pseudo-Science?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Clearly so as Economists base their models of human behaviour on what they deem to be 'rational'. Of course what is rational can only be defined in a cultural context (alot of economists seem to have this idea that "me" and wanting "stuff" is rational and common sensical thing I can do.)

That is not to say Economics is not useful or a pointless waste of time. It describes the current conditions well; which is to say, if you want to change society you have to change human behaviour first.

[John Dibble]

No. So long as economic studies are conducted using the scientific method they can't be considered pseudo-science. However, that does not mean that economics is an exacting science like physics. It is an inexact science, perhaps within the realm of social psychology.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes.

[John Dibble]

Yes.

Why?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes.

Why?

It does not take into impact running out of resources or environmental troubles caused by stalinist governments/runaway corporations/capitalist nations that don't know abut environmental regulation.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No. So long as economic studies are conducted using the scientific method they can't be considered pseudo-science. However, that does not mean that economics is an exacting science like physics. It is an inexact science, perhaps within the realm of social psychology.

Yes, but that takes the idea that human behavior is a constant. (ie. There is such a thing as human nature and it is static and unchanging; thus we can apply the scientific method to discover the likely patterns caused by this behaviour.)

Rather, human Behaviour is rather shaped not so much by economics, but what we think is economical.

Perhaps another term would be "self-fulfilling prophecy".

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

In 100 years supply sider economists will be as laughed at as holocaust deniers and people who believe in Atlantis.

[Wakie]

Yes.  Economics are an attempt to gauge mass human behavior at a specific point in history.  Certainly the introduction of new technologies can drastically change an economic model.  Additionally, human beings do not always behave in a rational manner.  So yes, economics is pseudo-science.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes.  Economics are an attempt to gauge mass human behavior at a specific point in history.  Certainly the introduction of new technologies can drastically change an economic model.  Additionally, human beings do not always behave in a rational manner.  So yes, economics is pseudo-science.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Only retarded aspects of it like "trickle down" policies which is one of the dumbest most retarded things I have ever heard of.

[minionofmidas]

Absolutely. Basically a cross between Sociology, satanist Divinity, and quite complicated maths that just happens to have little or nothing to do with what it's supposed to prove (actually, sociology does that as well).

Economist thought can help to understand why a certain government scheme doesn't work as expected, but beyond that, it's fairly pointless.

[John Dibble]

No. So long as economic studies are conducted using the scientific method they can't be considered pseudo-science. However, that does not mean that economics is an exacting science like physics. It is an inexact science, perhaps within the realm of social psychology.

Yes, but that takes the idea that human behavior is a constant. (ie. There is such a thing as human nature and it is static and unchanging; thus we can apply the scientific method to discover the likely patterns caused by this behaviour.)

Rather, human Behaviour is rather shaped not so much by economics, but what we think is economical.

Perhaps another term would be "self-fulfilling prophecy".

Like I said, it's not an exact science, but that doesn't make it a pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is something that tries to pass itself off as scientific, but does not actually follow the scientific method. If an economic study follows the scientific method, then it's science. If the behavior being absolutely constant is a requirement for a field to be science, then you have to admit that psychology - the study of human and animal behavior - isn't a science. Economics is a study of probable economic behavior, not an exacting prediction of every last decision people will make.

[minionofmidas]

Unfortunately, macroeconomics is no such thing.

Economics is a study of probable economic behavior.

[Bono]

As most people, you misunderstand the axiom of rationality. The axiom of rationality simply means that man acts to change one state of affairs to a better state of affairs, it doesn't mean that such a pursuit is necessarily egoistic, just that people do what they think is best.

[Wakie]

As most people, you misunderstand the axiom of rationality.

Yes, but I do know the riddle of steel.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As most people, you misunderstand the axiom of rationality.

Yes, but I do know the riddle of steel.

Ah, but what of the secret of pyrex? Dost thee know that?

[Gabu]

It's a science as long as people keep in mind the fundamental assumptions of human behavior that form the foundation on which it's built (i.e., that people will always act rationally, that people will always try to maximize how much money they make, and so on).  Too many people try to mindlessly apply it absolutely everywhere without asking if the fundamental assumptions have been met - if they aren't, it's totally inapplicable.

[Gustaf]

Most of the people questioning economics here seem to have a very limited idea of what it really is. For instance, externalities such as environmental concerns are adressed by most basic textbooks in economics. As Bono points out, there is no assumption in economics such as that people are always greedy. The concept of rationality simply means that one prefers better to worse. It should be noted that many "exact" sciences aren't entirely exact either. Many examples and laws in physics are simplifications where factors that can be disregarded are. Exactness is simply a function of the complexity of the matter at hand  - the more complex it is the harder it will be to be exact.

[Wakie]

As most people, you misunderstand the axiom of rationality.

Yes, but I do know the riddle of steel.

Ah, but what of the secret of pyrex? Dost thee know that?

Nope, they didn't teach me that in Conan the Barbarian.

[MODU]

No, it isn't a pseudo-science.  It is, however, a science.

[bullmoose88]

No, it isn't a pseudo-science.  It is, however, a science.

And I concur with what Dibble has said thus far.

[Inverted Things]

Yes and no.

I took three undergrad courses in economics, and it struck me as basically generalized reasonable sounding nonsense. Kind of like psychology but without experiments (i.e. Pavlov's dog).

However, I have been well assured that graduate level economics is very scientific. Just another example of how everything you learn as an undergraduate is a lie--if it wasn't then we wouldn't need graduate school.

[ilikeverin]

It's a social science, which makes it inherently "unscientific" in some respects.  But I begrudgingly place it separately from the "pseudosciences", even if it's too ridiculously "treating human behavior as rational" for my liking.  I like my irrationalities, tyvm.

Psychology is drifting towards the natural sciences, YH

[Inverted Things]

It's a social science, which makes it inherently "unscientific" in some respects.  But I begrudgingly place it separately from the "pseudosciences", even if it's too ridiculously "treating human behavior as rational" for my liking.  I like my irrationalities, tyvm.

Psychology is drifting towards the natural sciences, YH

To my mind, psychology is 1/2 science and 1/2 not science. There are some great psychological experiments being done which improve our understanding of humans greatly.

There are also some very pseudo-scientific undercurrents in the discipline. For instance, Piaget's theories have been thoroughly discredited (see Devlin, The Math Gene) but many psychologists continue to expound his ideas. Another example: psychoanalysis still has an enormous following, and it's profoundly unscientific since it relies on completely subjective data.

In an introductory psychology course, one learns about many of these excellent experiments while learning also about the discredited/unscientific musings of Piaget, Freud, Jung, et. al. In an introductory economics course, one doesn't get a single statement precise enough to refute.

[Storebought]

It depends on the version of economics espoused.

Classical/Keynesian economics are scientific, and so is Monetarism, since they all draw conclusions, which can be described mathematically, only from observations of transactions of actual human beings.

Neither Marxism and Austrian School "economics" are scientific, since they both depend on deductive reasoning from arbitrarily defined premises, the utter antithesis of a science.