Is Economics a science?

I think it's a branch of statistics, an application of mathematics.

>How don't they use the scientific method? Explain.
I'm not sure what kind of answer you expect for how someone doesn't use something. It's the same way in which mathematicians, garbage men and basketball players don't use the scientific method.

Yes, but only marxian economics.

I'm sorry I thought you would have the balls to stand by your claim instead of backing off and being all bitchy about it

So is theoretical physics equally non-science?

>I'm sorry I thought you would have the balls to stand by your claim instead of backing off and being all bitchy about it
What do you mean? If I asked you how a mailman doesn't use the scientific method what would your answer be?

>mathematicians don't use the scientific method

Maths is not a science.

First all you're the babby who came up with such incomprehensible gibberish and now you're turning it on me and asking me to explain you what you meant. I have no idea what you mean, "a mailman doesn't doesn't use the scientific method" is a jumble of words you can hardly ascribe any meaning to it

>First all you're the babby
Can you refrain from the irrelevant ad hominems?

>I have no idea what you mean, "a mailman doesn't doesn't use the scientific method" is a jumble of words you can hardly ascribe any meaning to it
What part of it confuses you? Are you not familiar with mailmen? I assume you know what it means to use the scientific method since you asked me what it meant to not use it here

How DOES an economist use the scientific method?

It’s as much of a science as sociology

it's not an ad-hominem. dumb dumb

what does mailmen don't use the scientific method even mean? individual mailman don't use the scientific method? as a whole? they can't? are they bared from it? do you mean their job doesn't require it? you talk like a toddler and is very hard to decipher what you mean, ignoring that this mailman pondering is a completely unnecessary detour stemming from you refusing to stand by your initial claim.

do they? i don't know, i'm not the guy making claims here, you came out saying economists don't use the scientific method and i just asked for clarification. It shouldn't be so hard to explain what you mean if you really knew what you meant rather than keeping trying to turn the tables on me

>what does mailmen don't use the scientific method even mean?
You initially asked me how economists don't use the scientific method. Ascribe the same meaning of the question to mailmen.

that doesn't really say anything

i interpreted economists don't use the sm as the sm isn't employed in economics. i don't know how to ascribe this meaning to mailmen. again this is a red herring. you're just trying to get me to explain to you what YOU mean by what YOU said. let's just let that sink in how ridiculous that is. i hope you're an highschooler cause if that's the way you do your science it's very disappointing

We don't have the capability to test a Theoretical Physicist's hypothesis yet, but someday we will.

We will never be able to test an Economist's claims under laboratory conditions.

Hard sciences:
physics
chemistry
biology
Soft sciences:
psychology
sociology
anthropology

Law isn't science
Economics isn't science

>i interpreted economists don't use the sm as the sm isn't employed in economics. i don't know how to ascribe this meaning to mailmen.
The scientific method isn't employed in mail delivery.

>Soft sciences:
>psychology
>sociology
>anthropology
"Soft science" is actually a misnomer since they're not sciences to begin with.

neither are philosophy or math

no experiments

Ok and?
>the scientific method isn't employed in economics
Elaborate. Explain.

They're each a study of the fundamental nature of something.

Every single week we have the same thread. This is getting really boring.

For my fellow economists who seem to seek desperate approval from physicists, mathematicians, etc.: just stop pretending like econ can ever reach the level of maturity and solidity that these hard sciences reached.

To the other guys, who seem to think econ is just a bunch of baboons with no theoretical foundations: read Debreu's Theory of Value, Mas-Colell's General Equilibrium - a Differentiable Approach, Lucas and Stokey's Recursive Methods in Economic Dynamics, etc. and I dare you to say that those are easy books for someone with no background in maths.

/thread

>laboratory conditions
What do you mean by laboratory conditions exactly?

>Elaborate. Explain.
Can you be more specific?

Exactly, can you be more specific? That's what I'm asking you.

"Science" used to be called "natural history". So yeah

>Exactly, can you be more specific?
I've already said that economists don't use the scientific method. Which part of that isn't specific?

>economists don't use the scientific method
this part
care to elaborate?

>care to elaborate?
About what? They simply don't use the scientific method, in the same way they don't deliver mail or shoot basketballs.

Other anons in the thread have been able to explain why economics is not a science in their eyes. You seem to have a lot of trouble doing that. You either don't know exactly what economics or the scientific method is or what you mean by economics doesn't make use of the scientific method, therefore you can't provide an answer, or you draw enjoyment from playing coy and dragging this on forever. Either way it's clear this conversation won't go anywhere and there's no point in going on. If you finally feel like your balls have dropped and can answer that simple question I'll listen, until then I won't waste anymore of my time on you.

>Other anons in the thread have been able to explain why economics is not a science in their eyes. You seem to have a lot of trouble doing that.
What trouble is there? It's not a science because the scientific method isn't involved.

>this thread again

It tries to

Literally is

I don't even care what point the other guy is trying to make but Jesus Christ you're a dense motherfucker

It's clear that you want to study economics, OP, and only came here for validation so you can still LARP on sci as a genius.
I say DO IT. Alltough not a science economics pays very well and you can even become an important politician if you have the charisma and willpower(many economists lack this).

>(((economics)))
day of the rope, jude.

Well, we tested Marx's theories extensively.

Economics is a mechanism to misguide people about what prosperity means.

Economy is science of how units of measurement in this mechanism flows.

Where? I don't fucking remember.

>those trips

Probably in USSR, China, ect. A 'natural' experiment.

Economists are political "scientists" (not a science) who happen to be good at math. Many economic models are so oversimplified that they are meaningless to the real world.

So is a lot of Math. It's useless until proven necessary . And then when we do need it we've luckily made all these laws and ideas about its behavior already

>So is a lot of math...
In economics there are so many factors that are impossible to be taken into account in regards to math; human factors, unexpected disasters, even changes in fashion. In physics I can drop a ball and get a pretty good approximation of how long it will take to hit the ground. I do have some respect for some economists, but they did to emphasize more qualitative data over quantitative.