Economics

[$uperman]

Is economics philosophy or a science?

I taught it was a science, but Alain de Botton said this:

" Economics is – at its most serious – a branch of philosophy. It shouldn’t just be the neutral study of ‘economic growth’. It should be the study of how growth can promote human flourishing: "

 

[Dogstarman]

Is economics philosophy or a science?

I taught it was a science, but Alain de Botton said this:

" Economics is

 

[zackryder]

 

[Iroh]

It's the art of making money.

 

[Uchi Mata]

It's not a science, at least, not most of it. The problem of demarcation is a huge issue in the philosophy of science, but by most criteria economics doesn't meet it. At best it's soft science as experimentation is very hard for most economic problems and many economic schools of thought have proved totally immune to falsifiability. Marxism or the Austrian school are much more akin to Freudian psychoanalysis or astrology than they are to physics, in the sense that there are no definitive tests of the theory which overthrow the theory, rather the theory is just constantly modified to include any conceivable event which occurs.

That said, calling economics philosophy or a soft science is not to call it useless. There certainly is some validity to microeconomics, econometrics, and some of the more basic tenets of macroeconomics (or so I think history demonstrates). But in terms of providing testable predictions that overthrow economic paradigms? That never seems to happen. As far as I can tell no economist ever changes their core views no matter how badly they turn out to align with reality.

 

[wlu29]

taught =/= thought

 

[DyslexicDave]

Pseudoscience much like ghost hunting

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'd call it a social science.

 

[Osculater]

^^ there you go, monica.

Economics falls under social sciences.

 

[CC's left foot]

Economics boils down to individual human action, which can't be put into mathematical equations beyond doing statistics. You can count on people acting in their own self interest, but that self interest is fickle and isn't always rational when viewed from an outside POV.

I think this is why macro econ reeks so strongly of bullshit. There is no macro, only micro multiplied seven billion times.

 

[Doughbelly]

It's not a science, at least, not most of it. The problem of demarcation is a huge issue in the philosophy of science, but by most criteria economics doesn't meet it. At best it's soft science as experimentation is very hard for most economic problems and many economic schools of thought have proved totally immune to falsifiability. Marxism or the Austrian school are much more akin to Freudian psychoanalysis or astrology than they are to physics, in the sense that there are no definitive tests of the theory which overthrow the theory, rather the theory is just constantly modified to include any conceivable event which occurs.

Sounds like string theory to me and we call that shit is physics.

That said, calling economics philosophy or a soft science is not to call it useless. There certainly is some validity to microeconomics, econometrics, and some of the more basic tenets of macroeconomics (or so I think history demonstrates). But in terms of providing testable predictions that overthrow economic paradigms? That never seems to happen. As far as I can tell no economist ever changes their core views no matter how badly they turn out to align with reality.

Microeconomics is real, but no one has actually observed macroeconomics.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Microeconomics is real, but no one has actually observed macroeconomics.

 

[Osculater]

Macroeconomics is just a theory?