Economics is one of the few disciplines that lands in the cross hairs of quantitative data and qualitative information. The study of economics is systematic, somewhat repeatable (the methodology of the experiments are anyway, maybe not the conditions that they take place in), and the conclusions that economists reach are substantiated by the qualitative and quantitative data they collect.
Economics is a study of the physical world and human sciences. Money is a major part of our world and society, and the study of it affects not only our physical world, but a number of disciplines in the human sciences. The frequent use of observing how a part of the physical world functions and drawing conclusions from one's observations makes economics a science.
The study of economics begins to diverge from the traditional scientific method when we take its reliance on human behavior into account. The changing opinions and preferences of millions (or billions) of people is virtually unpredictable. It is impossible to account for a million different, specific lifestyles. While economics fulfills the prerequisites of a scientific discipline, its predictions are almost always inaccurate because it must take into account some of the biggest variables in existence.
Does the amount of variability determine whether or not something is a science? If something is less predictable, does that limit its girth in terms of how many conclusions can be drawn from it? In physics, I'm sure you know maybe, that if you use the word "prove" in your conclusion, that you automatically fail. In PHYSICS, where teachers have been making kids do the same experiments for YEARS and tehy know the answers and they know what will happen, but we still cant say we PROVED something because the amount of variables lead to uncertainty. And physics, I'm sure the vast majority of the world, is considered a science. So does variatibility limit something's ability from being a science. History, for example, definitely not a science: has NO variables at all.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, isn't the whole point of a science to take what ever little data we have presented and try and generalize it in a way that lends itself useful to humans? Therefore, shouldn't the human sciences (despite their unpredictability) be the most valuable sciences of all? They follow the traditional scientific method, and instead of fulfilling the status quo of a regular experiment you would see at a local science fair, they take extreme consideration to the flaws and the things that could not be held constant. The human sciences, such as economics, exploit the system to extract meaning from what sets them apart. Punk rock.
BESIDES ARE WE REALLY UNPREDICTABLE OR ARE WE JUST SO ABSORBED IN OUR OWN EXISTENCES THAT WE FAIL TO CONSIDER THAT TO A GREATER BEING WE ARE ALL THE SAME, JUST AS WE SEE ALL "LESSER" BEINGS TO BE ALL THE SAME.
Punk Rock.