[saosebastiao]

Of course it is a science, but most critics of it should remember that it is a social science, and comes with all of the difficulty of proof that all social sciences suffer from. There are some common principles of the field that have strong theoretical and empirical foundations, and the rest of them are trying to make do with the constraints forced upon them by virtue of working with humans.

The principle of Supply and Demand is one that has so much historical empirical evidence that it might as well be called a physical law...but we can't call it that because the principle relies on human cognition, culture, and other non-deterministic influences. Trade theory also has an extremely strong empirical evidence. A lot of microeconomics is also very emprical, and even has a lot of experimental control mechanisms for which macroeconomics does not. Still, we can accept these ideas as true beyond any reasonable doubt. However, we have an extremely long way to go before the rest of the field catches up to the same standards.

[lutusp]

> Of course it is a science, but most critics of it should remember that it is a social science, and comes with all of the difficulty of proof that all social sciences suffer from.

This argues that science is sort of an ice cream store with dozens of flavors. But in the science store, there's just one flavor. Its ingredients are evidence and falsifiability. Either you can test an idea against reality unambiguously, and potentially falsify it, or you cannot. Fields that cannot produce unambiguous falsifications, and that won't discard failed theories, are not sciences. On that basis, economics is not a science.

Proving a theory true is not in science's purview -- nothing is every proven true once and for all, and all ideas are perpetually open to falsification in the face of new evidence. But the ability to prove a theory false is a must. No falsifiability, no science.

"No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion." -- David Hume

http://xkcd.com/435/

[lclarkmichalek]

Well, it's not as if Positivism doesn't exist in Economics, so I wouldn't dismiss the entire field just like that. Antipositivism may seem to be the dominant view (and indeed, it may be). However, I cannot help but feel that this conversation is framed very much around macroeconomics, and if people had more exposure/knowledge of other branches of economics, we might have a little more interesting discussion than outright dismissal by the second sentance.

Also, do you have to link that ruddy xkcd comic on every comment? I think most people saw it the first 2 times you posted it.

[rz2k]

Assertions that 'economics is not a science' are almost certain to be followed by some confident conclusion specifically related to economics that sounds like common sense, but contradicts anything that makes sense after applying any rigor.

[charlysisto]

The problem with stating that 'economics is science' is the strong underlying ideological and political bias. The human factor is always recursive : the very beliefs of what is natural (aka: science) in a given culture structures the way the society works. The ancient Greeks and Romans considered slavery natural, so they had slaves and you could therefore empirically/scientifically prove the basic laws of slavery... Abandoning the way you see society to science implies the way it works is deterministic and thus cannot be changed. You basically abandon freedom to ideology with a fake science mustache.

[bayesianhorse]

Which "law" of supply and demand are you thinking of? To my knowledge, there is no single such law, just a general rule of thumb. Simple mathmatical models in economy, in which "laws" can be proven often don't predict the real markets all that well.

[saosebastiao]

I explicitly did not call it a law, and even explained why it cannot be called such, so I have no clue why you are calling me out on that.

Regardless, I take exception to the claim that they "often don't predict the real markets all that well". They can predict real markets very well in most scenarios. Most theoretical-basis predictions of price ceilings and floors (such as rent control or minimum wages) are perfectly sound, but there is plenty of ambiguity in the results that critics seem to misinterpret as proof of the failure of Supply and Demand to predict outcomes.

Price ceilings tend to result in shortages, but occasionally result in no effect at all. But that isn't enough evidence to say that Supply and Demand doesn't apply to this scenario. In order to disprove the applicability of Supply and Demand, you would have to show that a price ceiling increased the quantity supplied. Such scenarios are as rare as black swans.

[troymc]

The current global population of black swans is around 500,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Swan

[collyw]

>They can predict real markets very well in most scenarios.

Amazing that we are in the longest recession in years, and back in 2006 most economists were saying the only way is up.

[saosebastiao]

Amazing that you would claim such a thing when the majority of economists never bother to publicly make a single macroeconomic prediction.

[MisterMerkin]

The only law in economics is Say's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say%27s_law

[notahacker]

Say's Law certainly isn't the only economic proposition claimed to be a "law", though it is arguably the most misunderstood and most widely regarded as false of all the "laws"...