Trent W. Buck wrote:
Rohan McLeod wrote:
2/ a science of economics in the sense of an objectively falsifiable collection of hypotheses concerning the exchange of goods, services and money is possible, necessary and urgently needed. Yeah, that one hurt my brain. Be gentle with your brain ! In a quiet moment explore the questions : Does factual evidence 'verify' a scientific theory in the same way that it can falsify that theory ? What set of facts are actually relevant to falsifying a scientific theory? Is a scientific fact necessarily quantitative ? ie Is " All bats are placental mammals " a scientifically valid hypothesis ? What do we actually mean by a scientific fact ?
The message I got from the Wikipedia article I was reading (not today, so I don't remember which one) was that their position boiled down to "we believe math isn't applicable to economics, Well a refreshing change from the econometrics point of view ! so instead we just hope REALLY HARD our theories work". Which sounds like they hope their theories are consistent with the observed facts (ie accurate); but I suspect they merely mean they hope their policy outcomes are popular ! It's important to remember technology has existed for > 2000 years, but science for only 400.
regards Rohan McLeod