Is Economics a
Science, Semi-Science, or Pseudo-Science?
Merriam-Webster defines economics as the following:
Social science that
analyzes and describes the consequences of choices made concerning scarce
productive resources. Economics is the study of how individuals and societies
choose to employ those resources: what goods and services will be produced, how
they will be produced, and how they will be distributed among the members of
society.
The Noble Prize Committee gives an award to an individual
for greatness and achievement in the field they term, "Economic Sciences", annually since
1968. However some question the categorization of Economics as a science.
Merriam-Webster gives multiple definitions for science
including, among others:
Knowledge about or
study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and
observation.
A subject that is
formally studied in a college, university, etc.
A department of
systematized knowledge as an object of study.
Knowledge or a system
of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws
especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.
Many have denounced the term "science", while
other jump to its defense(links to examples provided). The debate seems to mainly stem from the first and
fourth dictionary definitions provided above. Both allude to use of the
scientific method, hypothesizing and controlled experimentation, to determine
facts. I tend to agree, Economics is not a science in this sense. I cannot come
up with an example were economists can use controlled experimentation to
determine the "general laws/facts", if they even exist, of Economics (I
am very interested if anybody can think of examples, perhaps in the study of
behavioral economics?). However, I think undeniably economics fits the 2nd and
3rd formal definitions provided. Certainly economics is "formally studied
in college" and certainly is "systematized knowledge as an object of
study". However I am slightly taken
aback by these definitions. One could argue that Art, History, English, Religion,
almost anything, is a science under these assertions. All are studied in
college and all can be “departments of systematized knowledge”, however I would
never claim them to be “science”. I think the term science ought to be left for
that which can be proved as fact through experimentation. For this reason, I think
if you’re going to call Economics a science, call it a “social science”. I don't believe one would be right in calling Economics an outright science like Biology, Physics, Chemistry, etc.
What say you?
I beg to differ. Fundamentally, it would be difficult to test human nature (a major subject in the field of economics) by the scientific method. Regardless, the experimentation needed for results has already been done, in the form of actions of the people. It is the duty of economic scholars to analyse the ethics, philosophies, psychologies, and mathematics of each given event and provide the hypothesis, observation, and conclusions from said events. I consider it a reverse engineering of the regular scientific method... so yes, I would consider it a science.
ReplyDeleteIn my 18th century class, we often talk about about how the concept of science changed and emerged. The original sense of the term implied any kind of systematic body of knowledge--so yes, history would be a science too in this sense. The notion of the scientific method is a much later one. It is true that it is a bit more difficult to have experiments in economics compared to other social sciences, but it has been done, often in the behavioral realm. The consensus is, I think, as you observe, that economics is ultimately a social science, with all the caveats that brings.
ReplyDelete