Is Economics a Pseudo Science? (school, politicians, financial, Chicago)

[knowledgeiskey]

Think about it. It's all theory. If it was a true science, the whole world would be prosperous.

[InformedConsent]

Economics is learned and practiced as a science by some, and as a liberal art by others. That's why you'll see extreme differences of opinion among the different schools, so to speak.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

Think about it. It's all theory. If it was a true science, the whole world would be prosperous.

Ah, first of all, all science is all theory.

Second, it is a true social science which means that there are infinitely more variables to factor than in what some regard as the "hard sciences".

Third, there is a chasm between economic analysis and policy prescriptions and the willingness of politicians to heed that advice.

Fourth if you doubt the validity of economist then there are a lot of financial institutions that are paying a lot of money for nothing.

[I Drink Water]

No, it is a social science and often called the queen of social sciences. However, it sometimes tries to be a hard science. Hence, why economics is sometimes called "physics envy", especially in the context of the neoclassical paradigm.

Additionally, it is no easy task to model the complexities of human decision making in a dynamic world. In that sense, it is harder to practice than physics.

[mwruckman]

Originally Posted by I Drink Water

No, it is a social science and often called the queen of social sciences. However, it sometimes tries to be a hard science. Hence, why economics is sometimes called "physics envy", especially in the context of the neoclassical paradigm.

Additionally, it is no easy task to model the complexities of human decision making in a dynamic world. In that sense, it is harder to practice than physics.

Economics differs from Physics or Chemistry in that it is based on contingency or history. This means that it is path dependent, sensitive to initial conditions, you can't subject it to time reversal and reliable models simply can't be contructed except for the most trivial problems.It shares this property with a lot of other sciences like biology, meterology, ecology, climateology and earthquake science. Does this make it unworthy of study absolutely not.

[BentBow]

It depends if it is all theory, or just a power grab.

[swirling_vortex]

It's a social science, so unlike physics, economics doesn't have the tried-and-true methods that you find in the natural sciences. It deals with the most variable object: People. That's why you can have 5 economists arguing with each other and they might be all right to a certain degree.

The main schools out there now would be Keynesian, Chicago, and Austrian.

[le roi]

i had to look up the definition of "hard science."

as far as i can tell , there is no clear cut definition of hard science. it's a matter of opinion.

[floridasandy]

it certainly is as practiced by our economists.

it reminds me of the quote that the only purpose of economists is to make astrologers look good.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

Think about it. It's all theory. If it was a true science, the whole world would be prosperous.

If you take liberal policy, based solely on theory, out of the equation, the world would be more prosperous.

Imagine how prosperous a nation would be without the burden of SS, welfare programs, Medicare and Medicaid around its neck?

Just a point...."poverty" levels are exactly the same as they were before lbj's "great society" programs.