Luke wrote:I'm astonished I'm even having this conversation with someone with your level of intelligence.
Yeah, I know. I can't believe I am having this conversation either.
First, you are misusing the term "theory". Generally, that term means a "coherent group of . . . general propositions . . . that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena." It might also mean "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation." Correct uses of the term would be "theory of relativity," "price theory," theory of evolution," and "conspiracy theory." Again, saying that economics is a "theory" makes no more sense than calling history, marketing, physics, or zoology a "theory." At the very least, you would have to agree that all of those are "fields of study," if not sciences.
I think you are using the term "theory" to mean "something that cannot be confirmed". Again, however, you are wrong with regard to economics. Unlike history, literature, or religious studies, economics is based on both mathematics and observation. (Of all the social sciences, it reminds me the most of physics.) That is, an economist develops a theory, like price theory, to explain observed phenomena based on mathematics, her own experiences, and a series of simplifying assumptions. She then gathers data to confirm this theory. If the theory does not hold up, then she tries to determine why it did not - perhaps modifying her assumptions. (Physics works pretty much the same way.)
Certainly, calculations do not always work, but there is a lot more to economic predictions than simply gazing into a crystal ball. Moreover, "predicting the future" is no more the point of economics than "predicting the future" is the point of any other science. The point is to explain observed phenomena. (Making a prediction based on these explanations is certainly a nice benefit, however.) Just as an engineer might say, "Based upon my calculations, it might fly," an economist might say, "Based on my calculations, U.S. GDP migight increase by 5% in the fourth quarter of 2015." The difference is that the economist has to take into account infinitely more variables and contingencies. Moreover, the fact that economists' predictions are not always correct - or even that economists ague over economic forecasts - is no reason to disregard the science. (Also, serious economists are probably arguing over which variables to consider and assumptions to jettison. There typically isn't much disagreement with regard to the "equations that don't hold up" among professional economists.) Engineers do not always agree as to whether something will work, and certainly, prototypes do not always align with a final design. (There are also numerous
unsolved physics problems.) Yet, you certainly wouldn't argue that we should completely disregard aerospace engineering or physics.
I spent a lot more than $75K to receive an economics degree from one of the nation's most prestigious universities; so, maybe I'm a bit biased. In my experience, however, professional economists are incredibly intelligent people who use incredibly complex equations to explain observed behavior. They also have a preternatural ability to predict the future rivaled only by meteorologists. They do not, however, exercise complete control over public policy - our laws would look a lot different if they did - nor are any of them capable of considering all of the nearly infinite variables that determine outcomes. The fact that there predictions are not always correct and the fact that they cannot single-handedly avert recessions do not mean that we should disregard the field entirely, nor do they take away from the fact that economics, like biology or physics, is a
science.
o.pwuaioc wrote:"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
Also, Luke, your post essentially boils down to "Economics is BS because some self-proclaimed economists peddle junk." Medicine must be theory too since there's a snake oil salesman somewhere in the world.
Thank you o.pwuaioc. You said that a lot more concisely than me.
