The question of whether economics is a science is both trivial and vital. Trivial because in the loosest sense of the word, describing economics as a science is inoffensively accurate. However science does imply three specific attributes.
1. Economics uses formal methods, shared with the natural sciences.
2. It is empirical
3. It is predictive
The first attribute is non-controversial. In that present day economics utilises mathematics and statistics in order to test the validity of arguments, theories or hypotheses.
The second is linked, although not as self-evident. Empirical study utilises only that which is observed. This means that economics must not use any arguments that are not based on observable data, any arguments based on reasoning, or purely logical argument are not admissible. Let’s take this statement, human beings are rational agents. This is the central tenet upon which the entire structure of microeconomic theory rests. I’m not sure how you would even begin to impute this from observing the world around you.
The third is the most problematic contention. With due respect to Hans Rosling, pitting economists against chimpanzees in the prediction game may just be one of those boring one-sided matches that you can fall asleep while watching.
So economics fails the empiricism test as well as predictive test. I think we can safely say that economics, if it is a science, is not very scientific.
*I doubt I would have believed anyone who told me I would quote Rumsfeld, but his statement is apt and strangely Carrollian.
2. That economics is empirical is undeniable. It is also theoretical, but that doesn't make it unempirical. A discipline can be both theoretical and empirical (take physics for example).
3. Economics is predictive. It may not be very good at predicting, but that means it is poor science, but still science. If economists could predict everything currently, there would be much less to study.
Any of these critiques could be levied at other social sciences. I don't think that you want to rule out the social sciences, as they are a major branch of the sciences.
Is political science a science? It is no more empirical than economics, and no more predictive.
Very good points. I think if social sciences were accorded the same status as natural sciences, one would not be having this debate. The contention is not that economics is not a social science along with psychology and political science. I think the issue here is that economists would consider what they do less fuzzy as it were than what psychologists or political scientists. There is a general belief that economics is somehow based on sounder scientific principles than the others. It is this notion that I am addressing.
Now as far as predictivity or determinism goes, a toy car is still a car, but it won't get you from A to B. Saying that economics is predictive, but just not very good at it, is discriptive, but leaves us with the question is there something economics is better at than prediction and should that attribute define its function. The discussion I actually would like to lead into, is whether economics is closer to a moral philosophy. Philosophy is speculative rather than empirical. And despite what economists might like to believe, economics is essentially normative, as in by looking at the world through the lens of economics, choices are categorized as better or worse, and optimality is as analytical a term as justice.
I agree that empirical studies need not purely so. However the mix is important. I think you will find that most of physics is driven by experimental data and results. More importantly since the variables dealt with are uniform and quantifiable (unlike say…capital :)) the application of mathematical principles allows what physicists call thought experiments, experiments that are either impossible or prohibitively expensive to actually conduct, but whose results can be predicted by calculation or computer simulation.
whetehr or not one can level the same criticisms against other social sciences is irrelevant if we are talking of economics being a science/social science isnt it? i say this cos inclusion of ecomnommics under any of these labels ought to be argued seperate from precedent.
dude… i agree with most of what you are saying in your response to gabe…but now i am super confused. are you arguing for economics to be a science or a social science?
Economics draws from moral philosophy, as in we do, and we define the terms for economics. Economics as such does not accord value judgements – we do. It cannot be moral philosophy.
or maybe economics is a bit of moral philosophy. maybe economics is wht it is cos it cannot exist as a subject without infusion of value judgements (inc. revision of). maybe that is why it can never be science.
I definitely agree that economics is fuzzier than most economists think, though I still think it is less fuzzy than other social sciences.(Though psychology and political science are relatively "hard" social sciences.
Economics likes to think that it is more "positive" than it is, but there are still a lot of positive statements. 'Real exchange rates can be explained by movement in the price of nontraded goods" is a purely positive statement.
Theory and empirics are complementary, which was my main point.
I think physics is an apt comparison. Just look at the debates over string theory, and you'll see untestable theories designed to fit a model. I can't think of a comparable theory in economics that is untestable but needed for theory to work.
Look at climate models too. They are predictive, but not always very accurate, just like macroeconomic models.
This quote attributed to Solow expresses my position on this post best:
“When I listen to Milton Friedman, I start talking like John Kenneth Galbraith, and when I listen to Galbraith, I start talking like Friedman.”