To What Extent Can Economics Be Considered a Science.
To what extent can Economics be considered a Science?
The issue of categorizing fields of academia truly “scientific” is invariably complex, leading to much debate. Matters such as defining what Science actually is, how to judge what can satisfy such a definition and the importance of beneficial discoveries all lead to further unsolved arguments which must be understood in order to make any kind of judgment. For economics, there is the argument that broad assumptions lead to imprecise data, that any tests are fundamentally flawed by their un-replicable nature, and that with so much dependant on human behavior, there can never be finite conclusions. Conversely these points are argued down, with justification of how they do indeed fulfill scientific criteria and that economics has led to many much-valued scientific discoveries. In order to better understand these arguments and judge the credibility of what is being said I will ascertain what is meant by a Science, look at how economics can be said to fulfill this, how it deviates from it and then cite important examples where further judgment can be considered.
So what does “science” mean? To take what could be seen as the most widely agreed upon meaning and consider the dictionary definition it is “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment” . The relative generalisation of this statement leads us to further interpretation. A process that appears to be key throughout any degree of scientific study is that of hypotheses validation. The idea is that through observation of a phenomenon, one can hypothesise an explanation of it and also predict other phenomena that follow as a result. Previously, before the formalisation of the social sciences throughout the 19th century, it was commonly accepted that the only approach to validate such hypothesis was through the use of Scientific Method.
The issue of categorizing fields of academia truly “scientific” is invariably complex, leading to much debate. Matters such as defining what Science actually is, how to judge what can satisfy such a definition and the importance of beneficial discoveries all lead to further unsolved arguments which must be understood in order to make any kind of judgment. For economics, there is the argument that broad assumptions lead to imprecise data, that any tests are fundamentally flawed by their un-replicable nature, and that with so much dependant on human behavior, there can never be finite conclusions. Conversely these points are argued down, with justification of how they do indeed fulfill scientific criteria and that economics has led to many much-valued scientific discoveries. In order to better understand these arguments and judge the credibility of what is being said I will ascertain what is meant by a Science, look at how economics can be said to fulfill this, how it deviates from it and then cite important examples where further judgment can be considered.
So what does “science” mean? To take what could be seen as the most widely agreed upon meaning and consider the dictionary definition it is “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment” . The relative generalisation of this statement leads us to further interpretation. A process that appears to be key throughout any degree of scientific study is that of hypotheses validation. The idea is that through observation of a phenomenon, one can hypothesise an explanation of it and also predict other phenomena that follow as a result. Previously, before the formalisation of the social sciences throughout the 19th century, it was commonly accepted that the only approach to validate such hypothesis was through the use of Scientific Method.