ohla

fnsd mcdfnjksnfkjndsfkjdnkfScientific theories are usually given by people who have some type of authority (or ethos) on the subject. They usually get this authority after being correct on some other theory (or appearing to be correct). For example, Albert Einstein has made numerous discoveries regarding the relation between mass and time, and we assume that they are correct because 1, there are no known exceptions, and 2, it is the simplest and most reasonable explanation for what occurs in the universe. These two general rules, if adhered to, usually form a very good theory, which people find hard to argue against.
The laws of economics are a little more complex as the factors that control a market differ drastically as time goes on and location and supply of various products and myriad other factors. The laws of economics will never be fully understood, and for the sake of argument I would not consider it a "science," simply because it cannot always be explainable.
When considering Natural Sciences as an area of knowledge, one of the key elements that seems to stand out is the use of reason when conducting experiments or gathering data. The various processes that scientists go through to find evidence to support their theories (trial and error, systematic result collection, experimenting with a hypothesis etc.) all add a certain weight to their discoveries about a knowledge claim, often strengthening the argument for or against a certain aspect of the claim. One issue that arose while we were examining Human Sciences as areas of knowledge, on the other hand, was how experiments have a comparatively less prominent role. Though both AOKs are “Sciences” and experimentation is therefore a key element of both areas, one of the weaknesses with the Human Sciences is that, often, the scale of the experiment is much larger and cannot be held under controlled conditions as, fundamentally, all human sciences deal with the analysis of human and societal behavior. When