Is economics even a science? As far as I know no theory was been

>>8386602
Physics and chemistry were studied for literally thousands of years before the even passable local theories were developed in the late middle ages / early Renaissance. Economics is actually very young in comparison and has stronger theories than, say, alchemical theories were for chemistry.

It's very young and progressing pretty normally as far as I can tell. At this time it lacks a coherent guiding principle like the Copernican principle or the principle of mediocrity. Much of the disagreement in economics involves disagreements over such a guiding principle. This is nontrivial in science because it means that there is no underlying model in which to interpret results and therefore it is difficult to fully dismiss hypotheses since one can reinterpret results in some other base system to force consistency.

>>8386602
It is but like you said it's really focused on politics

But you can study economics as a science but it has lots of math and theory and you have to be really neutral about politics

>>8386602

Thomas Piketty, Paul Krugman, and Joaeph Stiglitz, probably the most well known Economists today agreed that approaching the study Economics in a rigorous scientific fashion is just ridiculous. (they were all together at some random economic summit, its on YouTube you can look it up). I dont necessarily agree with them, but their opinions should be noted.

That being said, most economic models are either based on historical events, altered models based on historical events, eye candy for mathematicians, or ways to make a quick buck for hedge fund managers.

Political affiliation usually reflects ones values and behavior and Economists assume in most of their models humans behave rationally, this is where the conflict arises.


In short, its applied Statistics.

>>8386602
>I want to learn economics
>Is economy even a science

Mods. Ban this shitposter. This is /sci/, not /b/.

>>8386747
I have yet to see a single experiment demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that humans are rational creatures. Most "economics assume people are rational BUT THEY RNT" papers are the peer-reviewed equivalent of shitposting, as they assume
1) people share preferences, when no serious economic theory suggests they do and which is basically false by inspection
2) utility is objective, which many economic theories dispute for what seems to me to be obvious reasons by inspection
3) functions which maximize utility are information- and time-independent, or are continuous functions of information and/or time, or are otherwise linear

(3) is possibly the most innocuous offender; linearity in various dimensions is usually seen as a simplifying assumption, which is definitely reasonable for toy models, but then such results are thrown out for public consumption without understanding the implications of the assumptions. One example might be Holmstrom's theorem, which fails to hold once "linearity in money" is relaxed.

>>8386747
>>8386974

I have yet to see a single experiment demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that humans are NOT rational creatures. etc.

>>8386602
>Is economics even a science? As far as I know no theory was been able to constantly make predictions.

If you thought of economic science the same way as one would think of meteorology, one would not be far off.

>>8386978
define economic rationality

>>8387565
So much this.

Both v complex systems which are difficult to forecast long term.

File: 1473135963716.png (228KB, 394x370px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 394x370px

>>8386633

> Physics and chemistry were studied for literally thousands of years before the even passable local theories were developed in the late middle ages / early Renaissance. Economics is actually very young in comparison and has stronger theories than, say, alchemical theories were for chemistry.

This is a totally invalid argument to purport. The development of the natural sciences since its genesis was indeed gradual due to the complete lack of theoretical bases - and as such, relied on extremely presumptuous postulation in its infancy. Empirical discovery only began to gain momentum with the evolution and development of reliable methods and technology - these which were the product of previous scientific theory, and so their existed a co-dependency between early scientific discovery and methodology. What 'sparked' the exponential growth of the natural sciences during the renaissance period was the small number of somewhat blind or completely serendipitous empirical discoveries of the previous eras - which then had formed an early theoretical bases for chemistry and physics.

Any infant social science, such as economics, has a great degree of foundation already available to it - stable economies, a wealth of historical data, urbanisation, the internet (non-physical markets), and rigorous, objectively based methods for analysis (such as the scientific method itself). You cannot compare the timeline of the natural sciences to emerging sciences such as economics - inferring that they should be given equal time to become systematic.

>It's very young and progressing pretty normally as far as I can tell.

As far as you can tell? You sound like you've been observing the field expand for hundreds of years.

>>8388554
>Any infant social science, such as economics, has a great degree of foundation already available to it
None of your followup examples count as a foundation, they count as examples. My whole point was that the foundations are lacking because we can reinterpret data in pet theories. Yes, there are many "stable" economies, for various definitions of "stable" and "economy." But which definitions to use, anon? What is the vis viva of economics?

People have a rosy view of "hard sciences" because they never bothered to learn about the history of "hard sciences" and what things were like in the past—not that I blame them, it's not terribly interesting, but such a lack colors their perceptions.

>rigorous, objectively based methods for analysis (such as the scientific method itself)
The value of the scientific method is only as good as the underlying foundational model which will be used to interpret the data to see if predictions match outcomes. Economists cannot even agree on aggregate "rulers."

File: 1475404705595.gif (978KB, 430x228px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 430x228px

>>8388664

>None of your followup examples count as a foundation
>functioning economies
>geographically independant markets
>not foundation for deriving theory

I would have to smoke my body weight in weed to think on this level

>They count as examples
Examples of what?

>Yes, there are many "stable" economies, for various definitions of "stable" and "economy." But which definitions to use, anon? What is the vis viva of economics?

(You)

>The value of the scientific method is only as good as the underlying foundational model which will be used to interpret the data to see if predictions match outcomes

Anon, what in the ever-living fuck are you talking about? Your whole rebuttal has been nothing but clanging pots and pans, and throwing these weasel-like statements in between pseudo-knowledge.

Models are the product of analyticals such as the scientific method. A 'foundational model' is not required to ascertain an understanding of reality through the scientific method. Models arise as a result of interpreting data innately.

which came first anon - the model or the method?

>>8388781
>A 'foundational model' is not required to ascertain an understanding of reality through the scientific method.
I see. You have a fulcrum and a firm place to stand, and can move the earth.

>>8388791

Ah, I see now that I have been baited.

Economics is applied math, it is not a science by itself.