Spot the Fallcy

[Joe]

Economics observes, identifies, describes, investigates, and tries to explain human action, which is a natural phenomenon, through theory. How is that not a science? It may not fit the strictest definition of science, but is can still be considered a science.

Human action, as opposed to their actions in dealign with money. Anyways, it doesn't have to be a science to use the scientific method. I agree with Dur, though, I hesitate to call it a science of its own, because by your definition, many things that loosely fit the definition of science could be considered sciences.

What I have learned about economics, being an economics major myself, is that economics uses scientific principles. Then it guesses based on assumptions that people think are right.

Think of it this way. Using science you can determine why the sun rises. Therefore, you can predict that it will rise tomorrow and why it will.

No, it "guesses" based on existing historical data and theories concerning human action.

With economics, you can analyze what happens, but it is incredibly difficult to say what will happen because of it. You ever wonder how no economist was able to predict the recent economic downturn if economics is supposed to be so scientific?

You forget the many times economists have been able to successfully predict the behavior of the economy, which is far more often. No scientist can be right all the time. It is not uncommon for scientists to stumble on something they would not have normally predicted. How come Ernest Rutherford was not able to predict that the alpha particles he sent towards the gold sheet would bounce back at him?

Economics is a social science. It's not an exacting science, but it's a science nonetheless.

[Joe]

Some of you got it but skirted to far from it
In 1920 your avarage 20 oz container of Cocal Cola cost you between three to five cents, The problem with every single one of their graphs and many of their facts is that NONE of them are adjusted for Inflation... At all

Minor nitpick: I believe 20oz bottles are a recent phenomena. In the 1920's I think serving sizes were 6oz-8oz bottles. I think.

Yeah, I don't think it was even canned until sometime in the second half of the 20th century.

[neoolong]

No, it "guesses" based on existing historical data and theories concerning human action.

The problem is that human action varies so much that it doesn't help that much.

You forget the many times economists have been able to successfully predict the behavior of the economy, which is far more often. No scientist can be right all the time. It is not uncommon for scientists to stumble on something they would not have normally predicted. How come Ernest Rutherford was not able to predict that the alpha particles he sent towards the gold sheet would bounce back at him?

Economics is a social science. It's not an exacting science, but it's a science nonetheless.

A lot of the times economists only predicted the behavior because what their underlying assumptions happened to be true for that case.

I think that economics does use scientific principles, and while you can consider it a science because of that, I don't think it belongs in the same category as what are thought of as hard sciences.

[Mr Bean]

Minor nitpick: I believe 20oz bottles are a recent phenomena. In the 1920's I think serving sizes were 6oz-8oz bottles. I think.

Noted but until 1934 you bought your bottles by the half dozen so it maybe be 6-8ozs but you add that x 6 to get your 20oz

[Joe]

The problem is that human action varies so much that it doesn't help that much.

While this is true, there are still many core economic principles, such as supply and demand, that are going to, for the most part, govern human action. It does not vary quite as much as it may appear to.

A lot of the times economists only predicted the behavior because what their underlying assumptions happened to be true for that case.

I think that economics does use scientific principles, and while you can consider it a science because of that, I don't think it belongs in the same category as what are thought of as hard sciences.

Well, I agree with that notion; economics does not fit the most strict defintion of science. It does, however, fit the looser definitions; if things like archeology and anthropology can be considered sciences (which they often are), than economics certaintly can.

[Durandal]

No, it "guesses" based on existing historical data and theories concerning human action.

What "theories" would those be? It seems like every field these days has its own "theories," from communication to art, for fuck's sake. Those theories are usually non-disprovable bullshit.

You forget the many times economists have been able to successfully predict the behavior of the economy, which is far more often. No scientist can be right all the time. It is not uncommon for scientists to stumble on something they would not have normally predicted. How come Ernest Rutherford was not able to predict that the alpha particles he sent towards the gold sheet would bounce back at him?

Because he didn't know about the existence of a nucleus. Don't even try and compare that to failed economics models, which either fail to account for variables or underestimate their significance. There's a world of difference.

Economics has had some successful predictive ventures (the Leontif Input-Output model modeled the post-World War II economy accurately), but it offers no guarantees. The economy is a chaotic system, quite frankly, and it contains ridiculous amounts of variables and dependencies. In chaotic systems, though, you can usually predict the overall outcome through statistics and probabilities. Human behavior, unfortunately, does not have to follow statistics. It depends on certain environmental variables, and it is not really random. This just continues to saturate the number of variables in the system to be studied to the point that there's simply no way to guarantee predictive accuracy.

Economics is a social science. It's not an exacting science, but it's a science nonetheless.

Economics works with actual numbers, rather than vague statistical qualifications, like sociology and psychology, so that vaults it ahead of those two right off the bat, but it still doesn't offer anywhere near the predictive accuracy of physics, chemistry or biology. Physics, chemistry and biology all are capable of making guarantees, and they all have their accepted theories verified daily through experiments and research. They also eliminate theories not consistent with observation regularly. Economics still has two theories, one which states that the government can affect the economy through tax manipulation, and one which says the opposite. They've been around for more than 50 years, and neither shows any signs of being disproven. Science evolves. If a discipline hasn't managed to phase out competing theories in half-a-century, then its classification as a science is extremely questionable.

[Joe]

What "theories" would those be? It seems like every field these days has its own "theories," from communication to art, for fuck's sake. Those theories are usually non-disprovable bullshit.

The law of supply and demand is falsifiable.

Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2003 6:41 pm Post subject:

Durran Kor wrote:

No, it "guesses" based on existing historical data and theories concerning human action.

What "theories" would those be? It seems like every field these days has its own "theories," from communication to art, for fuck's sake. Those theories are usually non-disprovable bullshit.

Quote:

You forget the many times economists have been able to successfully predict the behavior of the economy,



which is far more often. No scientist can be right all the time. It is not uncommon for scientists to stumble on something they would not have normally predicted. How come Ernest Rutherford was not able to predict that the alpha particles he sent towards the gold sheet would bounce back at him?



Because he didn't know about the existence of a nucleus. Don't even try and compare that to failed economics models, which either fail to account for variables or underestimate their significance. There's a world of difference.

Economics has had some successful predictive ventures (the Leontif Input-Output model modeled the post-World War II economy accurately), but it offers no guarantees. The economy is a chaotic system, quite frankly, and it contains ridiculous amounts of variables and dependencies. In chaotic systems, though, you can usually predict the overall outcome through statistics and probabilities. Human behavior, unfortunately, does not have to follow statistics. It depends on certain environmental variables, and it is not really random. This just continues to saturate the number of variables in the system to be studied to the point that there's simply no way to guarantee predictive accuracy.

Yes, this is all true, and this would all be fine and well if I was trying to pass of economics to you as hard science. But I'm not, I'm only classifying it as a science based on a broad, inclusive definition. The American Heritage dictionary defines science as "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Economics clearly fits this definition.

[Durandal]

Yes, but how much has economics actually evolved? Part of being a science is casting out old theories which are no longer valid. How much of this does economics actually do?

[Joe]

Yes, but how much has economics actually evolved? Part of being a science is casting out old theories which are no longer valid. How much of this does economics actually do?

You'd be surprised; the old mercantilist ideas concerning trade were thrown out after it became clear they were wrong, Communist economics have (obviously) been thrown out by all but the Marxist lunatics on the fringe, and parts of Keynsianism have been confined to the ash heap of history as well.

[neoolong]

The problem is that human action varies so much that it doesn't help that much.

While this is true, there are still many core economic principles, such as supply and demand, that are going to, for the most part, govern human action. It does not vary quite as much as it may appear to.

Actually the simple graph of supply and demand for the free market excludes about 90% of the world's population.

Economics works for only specific situations, sometimes that is broad, a lot of times it is not. The point is to not forget which is which.

Well, I agree with that notion; economics does not fit the most strict defintion of science. It does, however, fit the looser definitions; if things like archeology and anthropology can be considered sciences (which they often are), than economics certaintly can.

Agreed.

[Durandal]

Yes, but how much has economics actually evolved? Part of being a science is casting out old theories which are no longer valid. How much of this does economics actually do?

You'd be surprised; the old mercantilist ideas concerning trade were thrown out after it became clear they were wrong, Communist economics have (obviously) been thrown out by all but the Marxist lunatics on the fringe, and parts of Keynsianism have been confined to the ash heap of history as well.

That's certainly interesting. The biggest drawback to studying economics scientifically is that there's no lab. Your experiments have real effects on real people.

[Joe]

Yes, but how much has economics actually evolved? Part of being a science is casting out old theories which are no longer valid. How much of this does economics actually do?

You'd be surprised; the old mercantilist ideas concerning trade were thrown out after it became clear they were wrong, Communist economics have (obviously) been thrown out by all but the Marxist lunatics on the fringe, and parts of Keynsianism have been confined to the ash heap of history as well.

That's certainly interesting. The biggest drawback to studying economics scientifically is that there's no lab. Your experiments have real effects on real people.

Yeah, that, in my opinion, is one of the things that keeps economics from being a hard science; the difficulty and impracticality of experimentation. The only real way to test economic theories is to actually find a government willing to apply them and give it a shot; and even still, it will be a long time before you can get results. It's not impossible to experiment with economics, but quite difficult.

[Durandal]

Experimentation with economics is more or less akin to a car company releasing a new model without any testing whatsoever. The biggest reason that economics has a hard time qualifying as a science is because the engineering and the science are intermingled. There is no way to test a theory without applying it first.

Basically, if any mechanical or electrical engineer had the track record of economicists, their licenses would be revoked.

[Joe]

Experimentation with economics is more or less akin to a car company releasing a new model without any testing whatsoever. The biggest reason that economics has a hard time qualifying as a science is because the engineering and the science are intermingled. There is no way to test a theory without applying it first.

Basically, if any mechanical or electrical engineer had the track record of economicists, their licenses would be revoked.

Indeed, the only thing that you can do is make predictions based on existing data. That is why I think economics only can be considered science under a loose, inclusive definiton. As I stated earlier, there are plenty of fields far less scientific than economics that are considered science, so economics is hardly unique to this loose definition.

[Durandal]

Experimentation with economics is more or less akin to a car company releasing a new model without any testing whatsoever. The biggest reason that economics has a hard time qualifying as a science is because the engineering and the science are intermingled. There is no way to test a theory without applying it first.

Basically, if any mechanical or electrical engineer had the track record of economicists, their licenses would be revoked.

Indeed, the only thing that you can do is make predictions based on existing data. That is why I think economics only can be considered science under a loose, inclusive definiton. As I stated earlier, there are plenty of fields far less scientific than economics that are considered science, so economics is hardly unique to this loose definition.

I wouldn't consider psychology or sociology sciences, if that's any consolation.

[The Dark]

We may get a chance to see if the taxation curve (don't remember the name) is correct or not in a few years. If taxes are decreased across the board, it'll be interesting to see if overall tax revenue goes up (as predicted by that theory) or not.

I think one of the big problems with verifying any theory is the sheer number of variables. The tax curve may or may not be proven or disproven based on:

1) how much taxes are decreased
2) corporate strength (bankruptcies will decrease tax revenue, skewing numbers)
3) foreign economic strength (how much are we exporting and importing?)
4) war and peace
5) consumer confidence (more purchases = more tax revenue)

One of my economics professor (who also held a BS in physics) once likened forming a global economic theory to figuring out the GUT. There are essentially 6,000,000,000+ variables for any economist to try to predict the general trends of. I can hardly wait to take Macroeconomic Theory...

[Joe]

We may get a chance to see if the taxation curve (don't remember the name) is correct or not in a few years. If taxes are decreased across the board, it'll be interesting to see if overall tax revenue goes up (as predicted by that theory) or not.

I think one of the big problems with verifying any theory is the sheer number of variables. The tax curve may or may not be proven or disproven based on:

1) how much taxes are decreased
2) corporate strength (bankruptcies will decrease tax revenue, skewing numbers)
3) foreign economic strength (how much are we exporting and importing?)
4) war and peace
5) consumer confidence (more purchases = more tax revenue)

One of my economics professor (who also held a BS in physics) once likened forming a global economic theory to figuring out the GUT. There are essentially 6,000,000,000+ variables for any economist to try to predict the general trends of. I can hardly wait to take Macroeconomic Theory...

Laffer Curve?

I personally have my doubts about it. That and I hope it isn't true; I don't much like the idea of the government amassing even more money to spend, it discourages spending cuts.