Economics

Is economics even a science? Are they lesser creatures compared to us physics and engineering majors?

As someone who majored in math and Econ, at best it's soft science, at worst its sociology. It's not a science in the same way that chemistry and bio are, but that doesn't mean it's not fairly rigorous and useful (given its assumptions). Higher level Econ is also intellectually stimulating, which is what drives people away from that. It's a shame, really. I think I saw here on Veeky Forums or somewhere that someone was asked, "if you're so smart why are you in Econ? Why didn't you do engineering?" And it's exactly this mindset that overpopulated Econ with dribbling children; it becomes a reject school.

>Is economics even a science?
>compared to us engineering majors?

No, they choose a model based on previously held ideology, and then accept anything that model seems to say to them.

Linear and non-linear analyses in economics are great. Otherwise economics is just meh.

>lesser creatures

People who majored in economics score on average 10 IQ points higher than people who majored in physics.

Economics would be a science if they could accurately test their predictions with controls

so no, until we have the computing power to simulate the brains of every individual actor (all 7.4 billion of them) in a global economy, it's not a science.

>said the Economics major while mouth drooling

>what is statistical inference?

Engineering is not a science,but some branches of it have harder science classes than majors like biology

>Is economics even a science?
No, but actuarial science is.

As far as I remember physics had the highest average IQ with philosophy

as a math major and econ minor, I wouldn't necessarily say it's a science, but like said, it's intellectually stimulating

There have been some important innovations in economics, for example the Black-Scholes model (not the equation which is a specific application of the model to stock option pricing).

But overall, economists can explain why thing happened the way they did in the past. Predictively, they are best directionally accurate but with a high degree of error.

Although this may seem less useful, policy makers can make decisions on how much risk one approach has to another (which has lower variance) and what additional step could be taken to lessen the risk.

>but some branches of it have harder science classes than majors like biology
Unless you've taken advanced subjects in biology, I doubt you have the knowledge or qualifications to say something like that. And no, high school doesn't count. Make your own decisions instead of gulping down everything Veeky Forums tells you.

Says who?

t.butthurt biologist

>He doesn't know that advanced biology classes are pretty much physics classes on biological processes
Lol what a gay.

Economics is an empirical science. You know I was listening to Peter Schiff last night and he was talking about how the story of human advancement is all about how we've built upon the discoveries of our forefathers. Take mathematics or medicine for example. Everything we know about math and medicine has been developed over thousands of years, with each generation learning a new way to solve a problem or a new way to treat or cure a disease, but the same is not true of economics. It's almost as if each new generation forgets the lessons learned from previous one.

The more I thought about this, the more sense it made. Many if not most of the economic fallacies debunked back in 1945 by Henry Hazlitt, which was actually influenced by a book which did the same thing almost 100 years prior, are still prevalent today. Can you imagine how bad it would be if every generation forgot all the math their parents knew and had to start from scratch again every time? Well that very same thing happens with economics. That's why there's so many people that still advocate socialism or Keynesianism. People haven't learned from the mistakes of the past or the lessons its taught us. It's remarkable.

>this is what engineers want to believe
lel

>physics classes on biological processes
Then again,most engineers take more physics classes than most biologists,I still dont get your point. If we go by the more physics the harder, most engineer branches would be harder than bio.

>Economics is an empirical science.

Then why are their proofs based on ideology and hypotheticals rather than data?

The point is you don't know what biologists even take. Also, Biology, like engineering, isn't one major but branches into specialities.

Economics is too broad to say that.

A priori reasoning can only take you so far. Mises does a great job in Human Action using axioms to form a system of economics, but fundamentally economics is rooted in empiricism, both what is seen and what is not seen.

Why are you trying to argue about who had harder classes? My low level bio classes were information dumps, and my high level classes were all literature analysis. But at the end of the day, undergraduate is 4 years. Engineers have to live the rest of their lives knowing they are not conducting scientific inquiry to expand the knowledge of the human race. Engineers don't have to go through a doctorate to become employable, which is a much more grueling experience than an undergraduate degree in engineering.

>if we go by more physics classes taken
By that metric, physics is the only science, and everyone else is stuck in the 19th century.

I'd call economics a religion more so than a social science. Mention Marx and economists will either treatyou like a heathen or as a member of their cult. Who cares if Marx built on Ricardo's work and moved economics forward with his classification of labor as a form of capital. It's all about The invisible hand of the market, or God, now.