Is economics a science?
No, it is a social science, as is anything that draws implicatios about a parameter from a population.
Social sciences are sometimes more useful than science, but the difficulty of proving something or accounting for variables limits them greatly.
it's wealthsplaining
It's impossible for economics to ever be a true science as there's no such thing as a perfect consumer.
Would a science take friedman's epistemology seriously?
>>2156927
Thanks to faggot Marx we cannot use the word bourgeoise in its original meaning anymore so shut your mouth.
>>2156961
Friedman did nothing wrong
>>2156895
It's too corrupted by ideology.
>>2156961
What is Friedman's 'epistemology', do you think?
>>2157185
All I can think of is how he view company and similar organizations as tools and due to that, a company's only responsibility is to maximize the profit to the shareholder.
Compare this to a reductionist view that would argue that since a company is nothing else but a bunch of people and have no emergent properties, you can't talk about a company having any responsibility since it's just made up by people having responsibility.
But that's an ontological stance, not an epistemological, and someone may very well correct me because I can't remember the source and the reason I know this is a complete fluke.
>>2156895
Economics are like religion especially when it comes to the different beliefs people have.
>>2156895
Yes, only commies and lolbertarians think otherwise
>>2157185
>Truly important and significant hypotheses will be found to have "assumptions" that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality, and, in general, the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions
Basically, assumptions don't matter if predictions are "correct".
economics is bourgeois apologism
>>2158673
This describes early quantum physics as much as it does homo economicus.