[borism]

Right! Everything else uses math, and math is HARD! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Criticism_of_th...

Critics have concluded that modern Austrian economics generally lacks scientific rigor,[10][12] which forms the basis of the most prominent criticism of the school. Austrian theories are not formulated in formal mathematical form,[108] but by using mainly verbal logic and what proponents claim are self-evident axioms.

[10] Caplan, Bryan. "Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist". George Mason University. Retrieved 2008-07-04. "More than anything else, what prevents Austrian economists from getting more publications in mainstream journals is that their papers rarely use mathematics or econometrics, research tools that Austrians reject on principle...Mises and Rothbard however err when they say that economic history can only illustrate economic theory. In particular, empirical evidence is often necessary to determine whether a theoretical factor is quantitatively significant...Austrians reject econometrics on principle because economic theory is true a priori, so statistics or historical study cannot "test" theory."

[12] White, Lawrence H. (2008). "The research program of Austrian economics". Advances in Austrian Economics (Emerald Group Publishing Limited): 20

[108] Walker, Deborah L.. "Austrian Economics". Library of Economics and Liberty. Retrieved 2010-01-23.

[dmm]

Psychology isn't mathematically formulated either. Is it science? Perhaps an Austrian economist would argue that economics is more closely related to psychology than physics.

I have seen several mathematical "proofs" that not only god exists but that he is catholic. Is that science?

What does the artifact of being mathematically formulated have to do with something being science?

[philwelch]

Psychology (at least contemporary research psychology) is based on empirical research and judicious use of statistical techniques; Austrian economics is based on philosophical handwaving. Psychology involves observation and allows for an element of surprise; Austrian economics, at least since the days of Rothbard, involves coming up with moralistic arguments for libertarianism. (The early Austrians were important in the history of economics, but being an Austrian economist today is like being a Freudian psychologist today; people do it, but one has to look askance at such a person.)

[borism]

of course math is not the only ingredient needed to do science, but it's something you can't do without. If your theory is based on "self-evident axioms" that nobody is allowed to challenge, what you've created is a cult or religion, not scientific branch.

behavioral economics uses quite a lot of math alongside psychology.

[ungerik]

So every result of a mathematical formula is true because it's math, right?

Common sense can't be true, because there is no formula for it?

[borism]

in fact it can't. in middle ages (and indeed to this day) it is common sense that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, yet it is blatantly false.

[lurker17]

Heavier object do fall faster than lighter ones, near the surface of the Earth, due to air resistance.

[borism]

air resistance has nothing to do with weight of an object, it depends object's aerodynamic drag.

[CamperBob]

Well, there's some low-hanging fruit in that article. What branches of economics do rest on scientific rigor?

[nl]

Plenty.

The most obvious and best known recent example is game theory, which John Nash famously won the Economics Nobel for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash

The 1947 book "Foundations of Economic Analysis" is worth looking at. The table of contents - replicated in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Economic_Analysi...) - will give you a good starting point.

[borism]

true, there are a lot of axioms in many branches of economics that noone is allowed to touch, some have more, some have less. But AFAIK nowhere as much as in Austrian School today.