Is Economics a Pseudo-Science?

[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.

[Wakie]

As most people, you misunderstand the axiom of rationality.

Yes, but I do know the riddle of steel.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.