Is Economics a Pseudo-Science?

[Storebought]

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.

Ain't that the truth.

The whole of chemistry is complete junk until you reach at least the junior year of college

[minionofmidas]

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.

Eh... where is that different from all the classical stuff? The saving grace of the Austrians is that they were at least aware of what they're doing.

[Јas]

I think in order to properly answer this I'd need your definitions of what qualifies something as a 'psuedo-science' (and indeed a 'science', I suppose).

[minionofmidas]

I think in order to properly answer this I'd need your definitions of what qualifies something as a 'psuedo-science' (and indeed a 'science', I suppose).

Ah, admittedly.

[Inverted Things]

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.

Playing devil's advocate, I'd like to point out that Einstein came up with his theories of relativity by reasoning from arbitrarily defined premises.

I think the true test of a science is "can these theories be tested?" If the answer is yes, you probably have a science.

[minionofmidas]

The true test is, "what happens after these theories have been falsified?" At least, that's the test I applied when consigning economics to the realm of the non-scientific. Same would go for the Freudians.

[Wakie]

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.

Playing devil's advocate, I'd like to point out that Einstein came up with his theories of relativity by reasoning from arbitrarily defined premises.

I think the true test of a science is "can these theories be tested?" If the answer is yes, you probably have a science.

For something to be a science you also need to be able to define laws (ala The Law of Gravity).  These are strictly true premises on which all other research, theory, and speculation within said field will be based.  There are no such strict laws in economics.

[Gustaf]

The main reason why people think economics is not a science is simply that they don't think it's a science. That is, because they don't think it is a science they think their own opinions on the matter are about as valid as those of experts. And because of that they think there are many different equally valid opinions on the subject. And because of that they conclude that it isn't a real science. Actual economic science is quite scientific and quite a bit removed from what most people consider when they talk about it.

[Bono]

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.

Playing devil's advocate, I'd like to point out that Einstein came up with his theories of relativity by reasoning from arbitrarily defined premises.

I think the true test of a science is "can these theories be tested?" If the answer is yes, you probably have a science.

For something to be a science you also need to be able to define laws (ala The Law of Gravity).  These are strictly true premises on which all other research, theory, and speculation within said field will be based.  There are no such strict laws in economics.

There are no such strict laws in any social science.

[Wakie]

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.

Playing devil's advocate, I'd like to point out that Einstein came up with his theories of relativity by reasoning from arbitrarily defined premises.

I think the true test of a science is "can these theories be tested?" If the answer is yes, you probably have a science.

For something to be a science you also need to be able to define laws (ala The Law of Gravity).  These are strictly true premises on which all other research, theory, and speculation within said field will be based.  There are no such strict laws in economics.

There are no such strict laws in any social science.

True.  Which is why I draw a distinction between science and social science.  I know that strictly speaking the word science only means the intense study and understanding of a particular area.  But I more closely define science as being areas where there are these 'hard laws'.  Economics, like politics, is variable and dependent upon human behavior.

[Bono]

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.

Playing devil's advocate, I'd like to point out that Einstein came up with his theories of relativity by reasoning from arbitrarily defined premises.

I think the true test of a science is "can these theories be tested?" If the answer is yes, you probably have a science.

For something to be a science you also need to be able to define laws (ala The Law of Gravity).  These are strictly true premises on which all other research, theory, and speculation within said field will be based.  There are no such strict laws in economics.

There are no such strict laws in any social science.

True.  Which is why I draw a distinction between science and social science.  I know that strictly speaking the word science only means the intense study and understanding of a particular area.  But I more closely define science as being areas where there are these 'hard laws'.  Economics, like politics, is variable and dependent upon human behavior.

If you're using it that way, then it makes the statement "economics is not a science" meaningless, since all you're saying is that it is not a natural science--and not even that, since in Physics there is a level of indeterminancy in Quantum Mechanics for instance. So all you're saying is that it doesn't fit into your particular biases--basically, it goes against your economic ideology, so you just label it a pseudoscience and are done with it.

[Wakie]

If you're using it that way, then it makes the statement "economics is not a science" meaningless, since all you're saying is that it is not a natural science--and not even that, since in Physics there is a level of indeterminancy in Quantum Mechanics for instance. So all you're saying is that it doesn't fit into your particular biases--basically, it goes against your economic ideology, so you just label it a pseudoscience and are done with it.

Actually what I'm saying is that linguistics aren't sufficient.  Based on the pure definition of the word, science, ANYTHING can be considered to be a science.  There can be janitorial sciences.

Like economics, politics is a social science.  There are theories about how people will behave in certain circumstances but honestly there are no hard laws about it.  So, what I am saying is that linguistically when I talk of something being a "science" (not when I talk of "social science") I am talking about something which has these so-called "hard laws".  In my book, because economics lacks these, I label it pseudoscience.

Now I don't know where you jumped to discussing my particular economic ideology and what particular economic theories you refer to when you say it "doesn't fit into your particular biases".  If you want to discuss certain economic theories and why I feel they work or don't work I'm more than happy to do so.

[John Dibble]

Like economics, politics is a social science.  There are theories about how people will behave in certain circumstances but honestly there are no hard laws about it.  So, what I am saying is that linguistically when I talk of something being a "science" (not when I talk of "social science") I am talking about something which has these so-called "hard laws".  In my book, because economics lacks these, I label it pseudoscience.

Personally I don't view the lack of hard laws as making something not a science. If the lack of hard laws makes something not a science, then you have to say psychology isn't science - yet the bulk of the scientific community would disagree with such an assertion. Meteorologists don't always predict the weather correctly, but you probably wouldn't argue that they aren't scientists.

To me science is not about hard rules. Science is a base of knowledge that has been gained through logical, precise study and research. (scientific methods) Sometimes this will result in finding absolute rules, sometimes it could find certain things are completely random, and it can find things inbetween - generalities and probabilities. Science is not only a tool to find absolutes, but to make predictions based on previous data.

[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

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.

Methinks you need to go back to school, old geezer   In the psychology classes of today, you learn how thoroughly discredited Freudian psychoanalytic technique is.  Even my two-week Clinical Psychology summer high schooler class teacher completely agreed with that, and he was the most "neutral everything has its proponents so I shall try to be objective" I know (which comes, I think, from him being a clinical psychologist ).  Your assertion that psychoanalysis "has an enormous following" is patently false, by the way; I believe only 15% of clinical psychologists (the only ones who I have information on) have claimed such an inclination, and they are primarily situated around New York City (where people can afford psychoanalysis, "coincidentally" enough ).

Piaget fits better with sociology, anyway.

[Inverted Things]

In the psychology classes of today, you learn how thoroughly discredited Freudian psychoanalytic technique is.  Even my two-week Clinical Psychology summer high schooler class teacher completely agreed with that, and he was the most "neutral everything has its proponents so I shall try to be objective" I know (which comes, I think, from him being a clinical psychologist ).  Your assertion that psychoanalysis "has an enormous following" is patently false, by the way; I believe only 15% of clinical psychologists (the only ones who I have information on) have claimed such an inclination, and they are primarily situated around New York City (where people can afford psychoanalysis, "coincidentally" enough ).

Piaget fits better with sociology, anyway.

I guess I got the education I paid for at a liberal arts college

[Tetro Kornbluth]

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.

And how do you do that exactly? As you're an Austrian I suppose that's related to idea of consumption?

I dislike the term Social Science btw. I prefer Sociology, etc. Again I don't doubt that in many scenarios that both Sociology and economics can be useful tools - but Economics can never claim absolute (or even near absolute) truth about any economic theory or idea like one can with gravity. For example to take an example of Economics 101 - the most essential idea of economics is Scarcity, the idea that all resources are limited in comparsion to the human demand. Which when you think about it is a rather large abstraction to base a "science" on (I would define a science as a study of anything which is objective and somewhat quantifiable - of course then you run into the problem that humans do science. But that's a different debate), and is clearly not applicable to many societies (especially pre-Agriarian societies which lived within Self-sufficiency.)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

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

Going Slightly OT:

Btw, the original idea behind any aspects of supply side economics - the Laffer Curve (which was used as part of Ronald Reagan's 1980 platform. ie. The idea essentially without going into too much detail that it's possible to cut taxes and increase {esp. defence} spending at the same time without going into debt as the tax cuts would increase revenue) was originally formulated on Dick Cheney's napkin.

The original of term "trickle down" iirc dates back to the 1932 US election campaign - it was what the Democrats used to attack Herbert Hoover's economic policies which seemed aimed more at protecting the rich (at least in the eyes of many people.)

Funny then that so-called conservatives would later find this term somewhat virtuous.

[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.

And how do you do that exactly? As you're an Austrian I suppose that's related to idea of consumption?

Well, you act to make that change. For instance, if you think you're better off with a car than with the €15,000 it costs, you buy the car. The notion of what is better as it concerns economics is entirely subjective. It just means that the person acts to attain the state of affairs she percieves as better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

After reading this, I think your problem is not so much that you have a low view of social sciences, but that you have a too high view of natural sciences. No empirical science, natural or social, can claim to arrive at any sort of objective truth since they always practice the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Aside from that, no one claims that economic laws predict the behaviour of every person in precise detail. Laws in social sciences only present tendencies.
Also, I don't see how you can claim that there isn't scarcity on a pre-agrarian society. Even if you limit yourself to food, there is the issue of the food varieties that can be gathered, preferences, work and time that are needed to gather food that could be spend painting on the cavern walls, etcaetera.

[Bono]

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

Going Slightly OT:

Btw, the original idea behind any aspects of supply side economics - the Laffer Curve (which was used as part of Ronald Reagan's 1980 platform. ie. The idea essentially without going into too much detail that it's possible to cut taxes and increase {esp. defence} spending at the same time without going into debt as the tax cuts would increase revenue) was originally formulated on Dick Cheney's napkin.

How do you explain the increase in revenue that followed the implementation of the flat tax in Russia?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

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

Going Slightly OT:

Btw, the original idea behind any aspects of supply side economics - the Laffer Curve (which was used as part of Ronald Reagan's 1980 platform. ie. The idea essentially without going into too much detail that it's possible to cut taxes and increase {esp. defence} spending at the same time without going into debt as the tax cuts would increase revenue) was originally formulated on Dick Cheney's napkin.

How do you explain the increase in revenue that followed the implementation of the flat tax in Russia?

Links to Statistics - from a non-biased website - please. (Of course there are many things which could explain this such as say the levelling off for tax evasion by some of the super-wealthy.) It should also be noted that my original post wasn't an attack on supply side economics just an interesting aside comments. Funny that you would read it that way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True. But you're implying that "better" neccesarily is linked to consumption and trade. If each individual thought themselves as well-off already and without need for purchases (within reason o\c, there's always neccesary goods like food, etc) then your theories would begin to fall apart, no? It's also worth mentioning here the role that advertising can play in creating demand which did not previously exist, which has always struck me as somewhat explotative.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes but tendencies themselves are mainly dictated by cultural factors; the idea that humans shall always crave more as a general tendency being the most noteworthy thing there. What we define as rational in both an economic and general sense is defined by our culture and society (both of which are defined around consumption.) and it tends not to note such as things as shifting ideas or even technology. Milton Friedman made the interesting point that in the 20th Century dramatic stock market shifts tended to be reliant on new technology, for example in the 20s expansion of mass production into transport, the Automobile and transport boom which played a major part in creating the massive bubble which popped in 1929 - the same can be said btw of the relationship (on a smaller scale o\c) between the Tech boom and the bust of the late 90s\early 00s.

As for pre-Agriarian societies, well in a way you are correct should you decide to consider time as a resource; but I was thinking strictly in the sense of trade, production and consumption in many pre-Agriarian societies (such as say, the Modern Bushmen of the Kalihari desert at least until more recent attempts at intregration) tend to live entirely within self-sufficiency. So in a sense there is no economic growth (except in good hunting years, etc) and nor any real trade to an outside partner (again until recently) but rather a state of statis where what is demanded is only what can be expected and what can just live on.

Now what would happen if that became the state of affairs in the west.

[Bono]

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

Going Slightly OT:

Btw, the original idea behind any aspects of supply side economics - the Laffer Curve (which was used as part of Ronald Reagan's 1980 platform. ie. The idea essentially without going into too much detail that it's possible to cut taxes and increase {esp. defence} spending at the same time without going into debt as the tax cuts would increase revenue) was originally formulated on Dick Cheney's napkin.

How do you explain the increase in revenue that followed the implementation of the flat tax in Russia?

Links to Statistics - from a non-biased website - please. (Of course there are many things which could explain this such as say the levelling off for tax evasion by some of the super-wealthy.) It should also be noted that my original post wasn't an attack on supply side economics just an interesting aside comments. Funny that you would read it that way.

www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed032403.cfm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True. But you're implying that "better" neccesarily is linked to consumption and trade. If each individual thought themselves as well-off already and without need for purchases (within reason o\c, there's always neccesary goods like food, etc) then your theories would begin to fall apart, no? It's also worth mentioning here the role that advertising can play in creating demand which did not previously exist, which has always struck me as somewhat explotative.[/quote]
No, I'm not. The same axiom holds true for plenty other things. A person stays at home reading a book instead of going out with his friend because he finds the book more interesting, so he chooses that state of affairs because he finds it better. A person donates to charity instead of buying beer because it satisfies her conscience, giving a better result. A person forgives a spouse who had an affair because he finds that state of affairs better than a divorce. As for thinking themselves well-off, well I guess you could say that, except such persons don't exist. Even for a person who desires food, clothing and shelter, all that is needed to produce those bare few things is so complex that he himself could never have the time and resources to produce them himself, alone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes but tendencies themselves are mainly dictated by cultural factors; the idea that humans shall always crave more as a general tendency being the most noteworthy thing there. What we define as rational in both an economic and general sense is defined by our culture and society (both of which are defined around consumption.) and it tends not to note such as things as shifting ideas or even technology. Milton Friedman made the interesting point that in the 20th Century dramatic stock market shifts tended to be reliant on new technology, for example in the 20s expansion of mass production into transport, the Automobile and transport boom which played a major part in creating the massive bubble which popped in 1929 - the same can be said btw of the relationship (on a smaller scale o\c) between the Tech boom and the bust of the late 90s\early 00s. [/quote]
The idea is not that humans always crave 'more', is that humans have unlimited wants. Which is true. I don't see how technology is relevant. If the automobile had a huge demand is because it met a need--transportation, namely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Production and consumption happen in pre-agrarian societies. Production would be the hunting-gathering, consumption is too obvious for the need to specity. Even trade happens. Since not all elements of the society participate in the hunting-gathering activies, there is trade involved, even if the trade is not always for material wealth: ie, while the father goes out hunting the mother takes care of the children.

Anyway, they do not have the resources to produce economic growth, so you can't really derive from there whether they have unlimited needs or not. I'd think, for instance, that they could do their hunting much better with better weapons, for instance.

Either way, I don't see what you find so desirable about a world where humans do not strive for satisfying their needs, as that would certainly be a world where humans wouldn't last long, but that is beside the point. Economics atempts to descrive the world, not prescrive anything.

[Person Man]

I wouldn't say its a psuedo science, but I generally agree that as a social science, it is not a rock to solely place public policy upon. I would compare it to Langdellian Legal Science, or what you call a science of trying to find the law solely based on what has been decided before and to refine out of it basic principles that should always be followed. These two methods of thought are both based overly objectivying existence. People do stupid things. According to traditional economics, a college student will always want to go to class as to get the most out of his student loans. However, that is not always the case. There are some students that take some time off to do other things or to rest and traditional economics will not take that into account.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'm getting back to this. Thinking about it again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But there is a reasoning behind all actions which goes beyond mere "rationality". If not, why is it then in certain societies to use your example, the reading of books is more popular than in others or the giving to charity by certain cultures. Class and economic wellbeing seem to being unrelated to these factors. So when making any choice a human goes through a series of what you may call innate prejudices or inbuilt biases towards one or other options. There are of course some human beings who flout such generalities, but I'm talking about the major of the population here.

So what does this have to do with Economics being a pseudo-science? Well if there is no rational way to act, rational of course being a word in english language, a construct which means whatever its user thinks it means, and if there is only assumptions, ideas, prejudices, biases and so forth then can not be any way of measuring activity 'rationally' without building into your theories those assumptions, ideas, prejudices and biases and occassionally, justifying them. This also explains why we can have "Islamic Economics" for example as the social and historical conditions of Islam are very different to the relatively uniform ones of "the west".

Obviously though no society or culture will try to create conditions where children may starve or that resources are scarer or more limited than before (unless you consider some of the more hippy-ish cults.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well we are beyond the Hunter-gatherer needs and I think in most modern 1st world societies we have to question what exactly are our needs; what you are descriping is more or less a unitary society where every role neccesarily has a social function which affects "the whole" and in a very visible way too (as opposed to say, mechanics for machines that build car parts.)

I think an episode of My Super Sweet 16 would convince you we have gone beyond this, no? What is the social utility or the value of their spectable? Where is the innate rational behaviour in that.