[atwrk]

Having an economic science without politics at all isn't really possible - you have to define a goal for economic development to evaluate different approaches. And defining that goal introduces politics into economics. "Development for what or whom or whether at all" simply can't answered in a neutral way, it will always be in the interests of some and against the interests of others.

[gortok]

Isn’t the whole point of a ‘scientific approach’ to reduce biases and to study the problem independently of how the problem affects us? Why do we call things sciences but we’re unwilling/unable to divorce our biases from the process of studying a thing?

[atwrk]

My background is in educational science where we face similar dilemmas. In both fields I'd say there is no conflict between scientific rigor and political goals as long as you make your goals transparent.

The fact that you want to study economic processes because you want to e.g. better the live of the poor half of society does not mean you can't apply scientific principles. But the results will not necessarily be applicable for those who think a rising tide lifts all boats and therefore want to develop the economy in the interest of the upper class.

In fact I'd be suspicious if people claim to be unbiased in any field that even remotely has something to do with humans or society - it usually just means they either hide their interests, or aren't aware of their biases.