Is there such a thing as economic science?

Many people say there is not and cannot be such a thing as economic science and who can blame them? Sometimes it seems that if we got the economists to predict the climate, and the climatologists to predict the economy, we wouldn’t be any worse off.

However there is no question that there is such a thing as physical laws. And these impose logically knowable consequences on human action and therefore human production. So we should logically be able to identify universally true propositions of fact about human production, and derive valid logical deductions, from physical limitations on human action.

For example, time limits human life. Therefore we should be able to posit a logical proposition that the time available to any individual is limited. This is a universally valid proposition about human production possibilities and therefore an economic law.

For another example, the amount of food you can produce from a given unit of land is finite, no matter how much fertilizer you put on. Natural limits on production possibilities logically give rise to universally valid propositions about economics.

Now you might say those examples are so simple, or so broad, as to lack significant explaining power. But the point is that we can logically derive universally true propositions of fact about human production, and therefore economic science is possible.

One of the basic propositions of Newton’s theory of gravitation is that things have mass. You might think that’s so simple, ‘So what?’ until you see what logical consequences can be derived from it.

Underlying the complex truths of trigonometry and survey, is Pythagoras’s theorem.

Darwin’s theory comprises three simple and observable premises: individuals of a species inherit differences; more are born than can possibly survive; and inherited differences affect survival and reproduction over time. But what enormous explaining power!

Therefore economic science is possible. It’s also not true that it lacks significant explaining power. In fact a comprehensive science of human action can be derived in this way.

How we can know such economic laws – that is the question.

Peter
It depends on one's view of human nature and political ideology which will shape either a Keynsian or Monetarist approach, which means there will be no agreement about economic laws. Economics is a human construct.

Science adapts to new evidence and continually re-evaluates. Science assumes an underlying 'truth' in the physical world. The fundamental economic theories have not changed for 100s of years only the history of how the constructs are applied.

You might argue that a piece of land will produce at most X amount but it varies depending on soil health, climate, seed viability, pests, fertilisers etc. Unless you can predict the climate and be sure about any of those other factors (like predicting a locust plague) even a theory about food production won't be definitive. An ag scientist might be able to scientifically work out the optimum production from a piece of land under varying conditions but that is science not economics. Economics is what happens after that process ie. the end result - how much to price the food, which markets to target etc. The soil and growing part is all pure science.

There are some rules of thumb such as when supply is limited the price goes up because consumers are competing for fewer goods and will pay more. That is the theory anyway. Fact is though some people might choose not to buy those goods while the price is high, some might only buy two instead of ten. So in total terms the value of the goods might be the same even if the turnover is reduced. Human behaviour is not static nor is it always predictable en-masse.

Economics cannot be science as it is not proved and the evidence is subjective and largely influenced by other factors like ideology.

<< Is there such a thing as economic science? >>

Of course there is Peter.

In fact, the development of a healthy vibrant economy that is actually doing its job of best supporting the population now and into the future has surely got to be one of the most important goals of scientific pursuit.

There is science that could be called economic science on all different levels, from science that has small spinoffs for economic gain to science that is targeted directly at economic refinement.

Or perhaps we could define economic science as only that science that takes into account the regulation of the demand side of the equation as well as the supply side and strives for a balanced non-continuously-expanding economic regime that can be perpetuated long into the future.

There is an awful lot of science geared towards improving the supply side, by way of ever-better efficiencies in resource usage, better technologies, utilisation of new resources, etc. But there is scant little science being done on regulating the demand side. That is; on researching how to best stop the demand from forever increasing.

So, there is scant little science that I’d call true economic science being done. But it does exist, here and there… in little pockets… by a few individuals …. who feel muzzled in what they can say publicly … and who continuously worry about losing their funding if the big all-powerful pro-growth-forever business lobby and government hear about their terribly subversive activities!

Peter, an interesting thought. Is there such a thing as economic science? Well of course, we have already achieved it.

All it takes is a bit of post-modern deconstructionism, ideology, the abandonment of the governing laws and rules, some “expert opinions” and bingo, economic science!

As I understand it, science is a process of testing and proving a hypothesis against the know laws of physics (not man made). Economics is a set of rules that govern the exchange of an assigned value of money for goods and services. Public goods and services from government in exchange for taxes collected and private (market driven) goods and services (man made). Mix them up all you like but disaster is guaranteed.

The only applicable “laws” in economics are the regulations imposed by governments and governance bodies.

We have lots of examples to show just how bad things get when “disciplines” are grafted.

When you screw with markets on ideological grounds you get “Pink Bats”. 200 house fires, four deaths, a $1Bn bill, 273 businesses fold, and 3,000 lost contracts for the industry. Excellent!

Now we are heading down the same path with NBN Co, mining tax, plus CO2 tax, plus GST redistribution, plus high A$, plus risky sovereign investment, plus tax review and a two speed economy just to mention few. Would you buy this? Absolutely not.

When we mix science fiction with religion we get scientology. When we mix science with international politics we get CAGW. When we try to mix economics with science we get Ross Garnaut.

It is all very simple; just keep changing the rules and the questions.

Example Peter. <<How we can know such economic laws – that is the question. >>

The “assumption” here is that there are such things as “economic laws”. There can be no such thing. You can have man made rules and there are literally millions of these. But you cannot have man made physics.

To answer you question. No. Unless of course you can point to some man made physics or some economic physics that would exist before humans. Good luck.

Pelican and spindoc
what if I can point to universally valid propositions of human action? "For example, all human action consists of preferring A to B". If it's universally valid, why can't we say that it is a proposition of economic science, or is an economic law?

spindoc
Not all science consists of the method of the natural sciences, i.e. testing of observed data against hypotheses. An example is geometry. We don't do field experiments to determine what percentage of right-angled triangles comply with Pythagoras's theorem, under what variable conditions. On the contrary, if it's a right-angled triangle, it complies, and if it doesn't comply, it's not a right-angled triangle.

Since the applied science of surveying derives from trigonometry, which in turn derives from Pythagoras's theorem, therefore we can have pure and applied science that does not use the empirical method of the natural sciences. It's logical, not empirical science.

Peter, thanks for that.

I did say that “grafting” of disciplines has potentially disastrous consequences and provided some examples. I have a serious problem with you redefining and providing examples of “non scientific” science.

Perhaps we will save this for another day however; your observations are a classic example of redefining science in order to make it fit into your “economic science” proposal. Your diversion comprises, human action consists of perhaps universally valid preferences? Is it “economic law”(which cannot exist), Is it “Pythagoras”? None of this is relevant at all.

There is not and can never be any element of “science” in economics. Maths? Yes, Formulae? Yes. Analysis of cumulative data? Yes. Nothing to do with science unless you wish to “bastardize” one discipline such as economics, to make it “fit” with your “bastardized” science.

Just look at the responses you have already. What you get from pelican is “human nature”, “political ideology”, “Keynesian v.s. Monetarist” approach and again “economic laws” (no such thing). Nothing to do with economics, just different socio-political ways to apply economics.

From Ludwig you get how the “economic science” is on different levels, that it exists in “little pockets” What is all this to do with economics? This is about “application modifiers” of economics to suit Socio-political ends. Esoteric nonsense.

Economics is for excample, the formula for calculating optimal product/inventory performance. GMROI (Gross Margin Return on inventory Investment). There is absolutely no “science” in any of this. It is simply maths, a formula and accumulated data. Man made data, man made formula and man made math’s.

Yes you can navigate carefully down the “math’s is science” path as much as you like, but it is not. Math’s is a means we humans have invented to help us understand our environment. Math’s was never invented by physics so we could understand our environment.

You draw on the nuances of empirical, natural, applied and logical science. Utterly irrelevant. The discipline of science in any form must not be grafted to the totally different discipline of economics. Only the output from one discipline is relevant to any other.

It is an interesting proposition Peter. But how would you prove an economic theory using scientific method?

"what if I can point to universally valid propositions of human action? "For example, all human action consists of preferring A to B". If it's universally valid, why can't we say that it is a proposition of economic science, or is an economic law?"

That is like saying all humans prefer to live than to die a painful death so that must mean economic laws can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - the two have no connection.

It still boils down to providing evidence that one particular economic 'law' (theory) is the best approach based on a common undertanding of a particular behavioural pattern. What about the variations in human behaviour? If there was such commonality wouldn't we all think the same and have faith in only one possible economic system? That is even including taking into account different upbringings, culture, personal experiences and moral codes. Morality is an interesting aspect of economics because all theories imply a moral superiority. Either the greater good, freedom of the individual, and variations inbetween.

From the Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology

Science is:

"1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts.

2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation.

3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy."

Others argue science to be the continual testing of hypotheses.

If one could argue and prove a particular behavioural application rooted in science (neuroscience or the function/operation of the brain) coming up with the basis of the 'human condition', other than survival instinct, maybe one might be able to argue the case for the most appropriate or viable economic system to complement that nature. And in fact people do that is why there is such variation. But is it science?

<< There is not and can never be any element of “science” in economics. >>

What a bizarre assertion, spindoc.

So, what on earth do you consider science to be then??

<< From Ludwig you get how the “economic science” is on different levels, that it exists in “little pockets” What is all this to do with economics? This is about “application modifiers” of economics to suit Socio-political ends. Esoteric nonsense. >>

Pffff, it is your rant that sounds like esoteric nonsense or just plain nonsense nonsense!! Why on earth you feel the need to try and divorce science from economics, I’d love to know. Makes no sense to me at all.

I mean, OF COURSE they are very closely intertwined and overlapping.

And OF COURSE science contributes to economic growth, and to some extent (nowhere near enough) to researching how best to keep the economy healthy into the far distant future.

So, OF COURSE there is economic science!

Crikey, that’s not rocket science! It’s a pretty easy concept to grasp!

<< The discipline of science in any form must not be grafted to the totally different discipline of economics. >>

Dear oh deary me!

Lot of heat, not much light.

Until it can be shown that a given set of inputs will consistently generate the same result, I don't believe we can call it a science.

>>Underlying the complex truths of trigonometry and survey, is Pythagoras’s theorem.<<

Pythagoras' theorem has worked consistently for thousands of years. And there is a reason for that.

Economics has no similar constant that it is able to point to, in order to form the basis of a science.

Robert Lucas said it best in an Economist article from 2009. Interestingly, the article was a response to attacks on the inability of economists to predict the GFC...

"If an economist had a formula that could reliably forecast crises a week in advance, say, then that formula would become part of generally available information and prices would fall a week earlier."

http://www.economist.com/node/14165405

The problem is, such a formula could never be tested, since it is a closed loop. The differing results - with the forecast formula, without the forecast formula - are not able to be compared to each other, and reliable conclusions drawn from the with/without comparison.

Which is the key element, in my view, that will forever prevent economics from becoming a science, with all the disciplines that such a definition entails.

Ludwig, perhaps you could provide an example of where economics and science are, as you suggest, “very closely intertwined and overlapping”, and “an easy concept to grasp”.

If it’s that easy, I’m sure you can answer these questions? Or is ideology driving your interpretation?

Aw gee spindoc, do I really need to?

It’s a complete no-brainer, isn’t it!

All science geared towards genetic engineering is directly aimed at increasing productivity and hence economic growth, is it not?

Science aimed at improving all manner of technologies is intimately related to economics.

And so on n on n on n on!

Even my science, which is quite marginal to economic values, could still be called economic science in the broadest sense. The study of botanical taxonomy and ecology helps us learn more about which species are rare or threatened, and what the ecological stresses are on various species, vegetation types and ecosystems, and therefore where we can and cannot undertake agriculture, grazing and various other economic activities.

Crikey, science is so utterly interconnected with economics in a myriad ways.

I find your notion that science and economics are totally different disciplines to be quite bizarre!

LOL Ludwig, I see what you are doing there. Literally funny.

But it's not exactly what Hume means is it?

Ludwig

>>Crikey, science is so utterly interconnected with economics in a myriad ways.<<

Yeah, in many cases by selling out - both by need and greed.

As will happen if Gillard cuts R & D.

Ludwig,

<<All science geared towards genetic engineering is directly aimed at increasing productivity and hence economic growth, is it not? >>

Absolutely untrue.

Medical Science and the mapping of genomes is simply a scientific process that increases our medical knowledge. How that knowledge is applied to a variety of human domains is not restricted to “productivity”, whatever you mean by that.

It does however support preventive medicine and cures in such areas as viral, immunity, transplants, birth defects, bacteriological and biological fields. The latter has its uses in GM food production which has helped third world feed itself. To trivialize all this down to solely economics is wrong and mischievous.

As pointed out in my first post, science is a human discipline founded on trying to understand the natural and unchangeable laws of nature. Economics is a man made discipline based on “rules” created by humans and we can change these any time we want and we do this all the time.

Don’t confuse scientific output with its application to social, political, economic, religious or ecological domains. Otherwise you are creating hybrid (false) domains.

The challenge remains. If you continue to assert that the relationship between science and economics is anything other than scientific results being exploited by economics. You can evidence your assertion by pointing to any “Natural Laws” governing economics, or any economic, man made “Rule” that can change Physics

Labours economic science is to cut funding on real science (medical research) and watse billions and tax people on science fiction (man made global warming). Go figure!

It's an interesting question.
The application of economics to the fluid world of human endeavour is, I think, the key here.

The ongoing failure of many "experts" to forecast economic outcomes make one doubt the "scientific" basis of economics.

Economics in theory is purely a quantitative discipline. It leaves the qualitative question of human experience outside the picture.

E.F. Schumacher remarked thus in "Small Is BeautifuL":

"It is hardly an exaggeration to say that, with increasing affluence, economics has moved into the very centre of public concern, and economic performance, economic growth, economic expansion, and so forth have become the abiding interest, if not the obsession, of all modern societies. In the current vocabulary of condemnation there are few words as final and conclusive as the word "uneconomic". If an activity has been branded uneconomic, its right to existence is not merely questioned but energetically denied. Anything that is found to be an impediment to economic growth is a shameful thing, and if people cling to it, they are thought of as either saboteurs or fools. Call a thing immoral or ugly, soul-destroying or a degradation of man, a peril to the peace of the world or to the well-being of future generations, as long as you have not shown is to be "uneconomic" you have not really questioned its right to exist."

Runner,

Go figure, yourself - Schumacher believed in the divine creation of humankind - but he was a practical man who understood man's relationship with the planet.

<< But it's not exactly what Hume means is it? >>

No Bugsy, it’s not. But it doesn’t have to be, does it? It is just my take on the subject.

So I take it you agree that science and economics ARE intimately linked?

<< Yeah, in many cases by selling out - both by need and greed. >>

Yes Ammonite. A lot of our science is plagued by impure motives. But even if it wasn’t at all, it’d still be profoundly connected to economics.

<< Medical Science and the mapping of genomes is simply a scientific process that increases our medical knowledge. >>

Oh goodness no, spindoc. This is so far from the truth!

Sure, some scientists are only interested in the advancement of knowledge, but many more are interested in their pursuits being of a much more practical use than that and actually leading to a better life for us all (or profits for their institute and big-business buddies and funding for themselves) which is both directly and indirectly linked to economics.

<< To trivialize all this down to solely economics is wrong and mischievous. >>

Who’s doing that? To suggest that I am is mischievous.

This statement is quite telling. I see a real polarisation in the way you are thinking here. You know perfectly well that I have not said anything like; genetic science is solely economics-based or economics-motivated, and yet you have made this hard and fast statement.

Well, you must surely know that science and economics are not entirely divorced disciplines, and yet you assert that they are. Very polarised.

The reality of the situation is highly complex and certainly not a matter of science being simply quite separate to economics or of science being always totally connected to economics. The relationship between the two happens on all points of the spectrum between these two end-points.

Now I’m really wondering – is this a five minute argument or a full half hour? Whichever it is, its about as nonsensical as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

Yes, Ludwig, Science can certainly be 'economic'.

But, can Economics be 'scientific'?
It can employ mathematics and modelling, which are often confused with science, but then again so can astrology. And they are both about as good as each other in predicting the future.

Probably for the same reasons.

Sorry Ludwig, dousing yourself in liquid Teflon is not going to work.

"The challenge remains. If you continue to assert that the relationship between science and economics is anything other than scientific results being exploited by economics. You can evidence your assertion by pointing to any “Natural Laws” governing economics, or any economic, man made “Rule” that can change Physics"

All
You are assuming that
1. science must mean *empirical* science, ie testing of empirical observations by objective measurement and quantification, and
2. the fact that human actions are based on subjective and ideological considerations, means that a science of human action is impossible.

My argument is:
1. empirical science cannot be validly applied to economics (because the fundamental data of human action are subjective; there are no constant quantitative relations to external stimuli, and therefore such quantitative methods are invalid, because they cannot describe any necessary relations of cause and effect.)
2. But a rigorous science of human action is still possible based on universally valid propositions of human action, and valid logical deductions therefrom.

Definition of science
I’m not interested in debating the semantics of the word “science”.

For purposes of this discussion, I define science as follows: the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles about cause and effect, based on these facts and principles.

All of you have denied that there can be economic science, but none of you have joined issue with me.

Eg spindoc
“There can be no such thing [as economic laws].

Why not?

“You can have man made rules … [b]ut you cannot have man made physics.”

But why can’t you have universal propositions of fact based on the way physics, or natural science, apply to man, e.g.:
1. Every individual’s life time is limited
2. All human action consists of preferring A to B
3. There is an optimum amount of each factor of production, ie holding other factors constant, you can’t indefinitely increase production by indefinitely increasing the one factor in question.

“You can evidence your assertion by pointing to any “Natural Laws” governing economics”

I have just done so.

These are universally true propositions of human action *because* they are universally true propositions of natural science. They answer your question to Ludwig of ‘examples of where economics and science are “very closely intertwined and overlapping” and “an easy concept to grasp”.’

So I don’t see how anyone can deny that they are economic laws. Why not? Give me one example of where each would not be true.

It seems to me everyone either has to disprove these propositions, or admit them. But how could you disprove them? And I can cite lots more examples of such universally true statements of human action. But I’m not trying here to expound the whole body of economic theory. I’m merely trying to prove that economic science is possible.

Subjectivity and variability of human action
There seems no question that if we were able to perfectly predict a given response from given stimuli, it would qualify as science.

The classic problem with social science is that the fundamental data of human action are *subjective*, and there is no constant relation between a given stimulus and a given response.

But that does not prove that economic science is impossible, nor does it prove that it can only be quantitative, concerned with measuring output etc.

On the contrary, it only proves that the *empirical methodology* of science is completely invalid – the opposite of what you are all arguing in common.

It means that the empirical approach to economics is completely invalid.

Pelican
“That is like saying all humans prefer to live than to die a painful death so that must mean economic laws can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - the two have no connection.”

But that proposition is not universally true, is it?

Some people don’t prefer to live than to die a painful death (think self-immolating Buddhist monks protesting war, martyrs, people who refuse medical treatment for whatever reason). So that argument doesn’t hold water.

However even those who prefer a painful death to life *do* satisfy the propositions I have cited above. We are unable to conceive of any human action that does not satisfy them. Can you? Can anyone? No. Therefore they are universally true.

So why can’t it be described as economic law? And why can’t valid logical deductions be derived from such axioms?

Why should the *probabilistic* statements of biological science be considered more scientific than a *universally true* statement of economic science?

Pericles
“Economics has no similar constant [to the axioms on which Pythagorass’ theorem is based] that it is able to point to, in order to form the basis of a science.”

Yes it has, that’s the whole point. Economics has universally true propositions of fact such as the ones I have cited. Being axiomatic, logic can operate on these in exactly the same way it can operate on axioms about non-human action. (In fact we do this all the time whenever we reason about physical law and effect affecting man. It must be so; if it were not, we would be faced with a senseless jumble.)

Because they are *universally* true, therefore ideology, culture, subjective preference and so on, do *not * come into it. What clothes people want to buy, and so on, fair enough, such subjective, variable and cultural things are not, and cannot be economic laws. But they can be – and are - subject to economic law.

The fact there may be disagreement doesn’t prove that economic science is impossible. Creationists disagree with evolutionary theory, the fundamental framework of biological science. Does that mean biological science doesn’t exist? Many scriptures contradict astronomical science: does that mean astronomy is impossible? Socialists think that economic science is impossible; it can only be “ideology”. But that doesn’t prove that economic science is impossible or non-existent. There is always the possibility that they are wrong.

Once we can identify universal propositions about the human actions involved in economic phenomena, including evaluation, preference, and exchange, we are then in a position to derive a body of valid theory about the resulting economic phenomena, including prices, capital, interest, profit and loss.

So go ahead – disprove any of my 3 examples of universally valid propositions of human action, or admit that economic laws are possible.

Hume, your definition of science is not even close to anyone else's defintion of science. At best you have described a philosophy.

Nowhere have you mentioned actually testing these 'universally valid' propositions.

You also fail in your first three propositions that you think are 'universal'.
1. Every individual’s life time is limited: TRUE and irrelevant to anything you have said.
2.All human action consists of preferring A to B: while being very hypothetical, I consider this FALSE. Unless of course you can move this proposition out of the realm of a hypothetical proposition and put a specific values on A and B and test it. I don't think you can.
3.There is an optimum amount of each factor of production, ie holding other factors constant, you can’t indefinitely increase production by indefinitely increasing the one factor in question. What? No, I don't believe there are set optima in nature, but then you aren't really talking about optima here, you're talking about constraints.
If you mean 'constraints', then yes constraints to production exist.

Your approach to derive 'valid logical deductions' from axioms is at best a philosophy. Economic philosophies are a dime a dozen.

You seem to believe that if people may not immediately think of contrary real-world situations to axioms that you consider 'universally true', then that is somehow evidence (or even proof!) for your propositions. It is not.
Science needs some sort of empiricism and testing.

Without real-world testing of your 'axioms' you cannot hold that they are universally true, you only assert it.

You got no hand, bluffer.

Bugsy
I got (and amended) the definition from Pelican.
Also see: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

Therefore your first statement is false.

“Nowhere have you mentioned actually testing these 'universally valid' propositions.”

You are assuming that science necessarily means empirical science. It doesn’t.

What about trigonometry? Or surveying? Are they sciences? If not, what are they? Art? Religions?

Do you empirically test Pythagoras’s theorem by analyzing the statistical frequency with which right-angled triangles comply?

How then?

The universally valid propositions can be tested.

“1. Every individual’s life time is limited: TRUE

Thank you.

“and irrelevant to anything you have said.”

It’s relevant because economics is about human production. Therefore your statement is false.

“2.All human action consists of preferring A to B: while being very hypothetical, I consider this FALSE.”

By denying it you have preferred A to B and performed a self-contradiction thus affirming the proposition.

Thank you.

“Unless of course you can move this proposition out of the realm of a hypothetical proposition and put a specific values on A and B and test it. I don't think you can.”

You are again falling back into circular argument based on semantics (science = empirical), and confusing empirical with all science.

3.
“What? No, I don't believe there are set optima in nature”

It doesn’t matter what you *believe*, the question is whether you can prove my proposition wrong. You haven’t done so.

I logically prove it right thus: if it were wrong, it would mean we can indefinitely increase production by increasing the one factor, which we can’t.

If anyone can do so, give a specific example; or admit the proposition.

Thus you have either affirmed my propositions are right, or not been able to refute them. All else you have said is merely debating the semantics of the word “science” - circular; irrelevant.

“Science needs some sort of empiricism and testing.”

No it doesn’t. What empirical testing do you do of Pythagoras’s theorem? Surveyors don’t “test” whether trigonometry applies or doesn’t apply to the landscape they are surveying. If it doesn’t apply, it means they’re doing it wrong.

Pythagoras' theorem is mathematics. I have been told on many occasions that mathematics is not 'science'. You don't employ statistics to it that's true, but there are more appropriate ways of testing the proposition. And has been tested and proven. Pythagoras' theorem has nothing to do with what you are proposing.

As for your No. 2s I see you mean A to be whatever you want it to be and B can be whatever you want to be at any given time. Some humans can prefer any given A to any given B at any given time, however this is far from being a 'universal'. I may prefer A today, or at least pretend to, but that doesn't make it 'universal'.

Surveyors test whether trigonometry applies all the time, every time they perform a real world calculation in fact. The very fact that nowadays they don't need to question the validity of the calculations shows the strength of the theory behind what they do.

I can see that you think that you can deduce human action through universal axioms somewhat akin to mathematics, but you haven't shown the slightest hint that this could be true.

Trying to assert that my argument is false does not make yours true.

In the interests of dealing with reality, could you perhaps regale us with a real world universal 'A' and 'B'?

Or perhaps a logically derived axiom from the first three that you believe to be true?

Oh and I noticed that you didn't talk about the constraints bit either, I'll take that as an admission that constraints are what you were actually talking about.

See, this logical stuff is easy when you don't play by the rules of reality.

<< Sorry Ludwig, dousing yourself in liquid Teflon is not going to work.>>

You lost me there spindoc. Me no comprehende that.

Hey, I tried to address your weird request, which really is the equivalent of wanting someone to justify in great mathematical detail why 1+1=2, from someone who insists that 1+1=7, but you just rejected my perfectly good response with the most unbelievable reply.

You wrote:

<< Medical Science and the mapping of genomes is simply a scientific process that increases our medical knowledge. >>

No way in the world!!

There is obviously no point in me attempting to respond further to your request, as you would just reject out of hand anything I wrote!

If you truly believe that science and economics are entirely separate, and that the only relationship between the two is when economics exploits scientific discoveries and advances, then you must have an entirely different definition in your head to me of what science is.

So let’s explore the definitions.

Looking at the Wiktionary definitions (which is no doubt just one set of definitions amongst many):

Science:

1. A particular discipline or branch of learning, especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability.

2. The collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific methods; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods and discipline

Economics:

The study of resource allocation, distribution and consumption; of capital and investment; and of management of the factors of production.

continued

You’ll note here that there is nothing in the science definition about the motivation for science. It CAN be done with economic motivations and still be science!

Neither is there anything in the economics definition to exclude science from the study or discipline of economics. Economics CAN include science, without it being devious or exploitative.

So there is nothing in these definitions that suggest that these two disciplines should be considered to be entirely separate.

Perhaps you can find different definitions which do.

In the end it comes down to what the majority of people consider science and economics to be. Like so many of our everyday terms, their definitions, and peoples’ perception of them, is very vague and highly variable. But having said that, I doubt very much whether there are many people who hold the position that you are presenting in this discussion, nor anything like it.

Peter/Ludwig,

I led with the following assertions, the first you confirmed and the second you chose to ignore.

Firstly I suggested that, <<All it takes is a bit of post-modern deconstructionism, ideology, the abandonment of the governing laws and rules, some “expert opinions” and bingo, economic science! >>

You have confirmed this by doing as I suggested, post after post of re-direction, re-definition, re-engineering, deconstruction and distraction.

Secondly I asked, << Can you “evidence your assertion by pointing to any “Natural Laws” governing economics, or any economic, man made “Rule” that can change Physics?">>

We look forward to a response on this.

In the meantime, outside the legal meaning we assign to “law”, the laws of science are the natural laws of the universe. We cannot change these. We do however use our feeble science to try to understand and use these laws for our benefit.

Economics rules on the other hand are man made. We invented them, we can apply them and we can modify them to suit a wide range of other human inventions.

We humans have created a number of domains; these are Social, Political, Economic, Religious, Ecological and Scientific. All these are man made disciplines however, only one discipline deals with Laws we cannot change and that is science.

Your case seems to hinge on the two assertions. One, that science can somehow be redefined to embrace man made rules rather than laws of physics and two, the extent to which all these are interlinked.

I can’t help you with the former because if it were possible there would self evidently be no such thing as science, but I will try to address the latter.

We humans have tried to elevate the value or significance of many of our endeavors by assigning a bit of “sizzle”. We often re-designate and refer to (Social) Science, (Political) Science and (Economic) Science. It’s sounds “grand” however; we don’t actually mean “science” do we?

As a direct consequence of this tendency to “Guild the Lilly”, we have also taken to referring to man made rules as Laws.

TBC

Continued;

The net result is that we have deliberately tried to distort the meanings through re-definition.

As a further test we can look at your so called interrelationships. We can apply scientific discoveries to all the man made domains. That does not and cannot mean that there is some sort of “scientific” element embodied within politics or any other human domain for that matter.

Human domains have a “customer” relationship with science. Scientific discoveries are also the “victim” of human domains. By that I mean that humans can “chose” to apply scientific discoveries in any way we like.

We can and do use (misuse and abuse) social, political, ecological and economic preferences to direct research investment (supply side finances) into particular scientific disciplines. We can then use the same human preferences to spend money (expenditure side finances) on delivering (or not) the benefits.

To suggest that there is some sort of “science” behind the man made domains of Social, Political, Economic, Religious, Ecological or Scientific is nonsense. There is only man made “rules”, millions of them. Our rules for understanding science are just that, our rules.

You can change, deconstruct, re-define and re-interpret as much as you wish however, unless you can find a single scientific Law that has only existed post human or conversely, provide any man made rule that existed pre-human, then economics is not science, just a set of man made rules.

By assigning the “immutable value” of the laws of the universe to man made domains, you can indeed imply that these domains are scientific. Sadly this is a false premise and your case relies on pure semantics

<< You have confirmed this by doing as I suggested, post after post of re-direction, re-definition, re-engineering, deconstruction and distraction. >>

Hells bells spindoc. The message you are sending is very clear – there is absolutely nothing that I can write that you wouldn’t brand as redirection, redefinition, etc.

<< Can you “evidence your assertion by pointing to any “Natural Laws” governing economics, or any economic, man made “Rule” that can change Physics?">>

Phoowey to your natural laws! Science and economics are anthropogenic constructs. What matters here is definitions, and what people consider these terms to mean, which varies enormously. There are no natural laws that define them, only human definitions or perceptions. The very concept of natural laws governing human constructs is fundamentally flawed.

<< We humans have created a number of domains; these are Social, Political, Economic, Religious, Ecological and Scientific. >>

YES!! They are NOT governed by natural laws, they are human creations.

I note that you have made no comment on my point that there is nothing in the definitions of either science or economics that prevents them from overlapping or from there being economic science, or scientific economics for that matter.

THIS is what really matters here, not some very weird notion of natural laws governing human constructs.

Guys, can you pare me your attributions of bad faith and let's concentrate on the substantive arguments?

Spindoc
Your first argument is sarcastic and false, but since it argues that economic science is possible, there’s no reason why I shouldn’t ignore it.

Your second argument is based on the false premises that
a) economics refers to “man made laws”, or
b) economic science, to be possible, requires that “man made laws” trump physics.

I’m not arguing that, my argument doesn’t require it, and you haven’t proved it.

Let’s cut to the chase. Do you deny that:
1) physics imposes limits on human action?
2) these limits result in universally true propositions about human action?
3) we can make logically valid deductions from such axioms?

Please answer each.

Please either admit that my three axioms of human action are universally true, or disprove each by giving one real-world example of where it or they don’t apply.

If your argument were true, and there were only “man-made” economic laws, then man’s production possibilities would not be constrained by physical reality. We could make up any economic reality we want, just by passing laws. We would have discovered magic pudding. It’s nonsense.

Please see also my reply to Bugsy.

Bugsy
Definition of science.
“I have been told” is appeal to absent authority.

Trigonometry and surveying satisfy numerous definitions of science including those of Pelican, Ludwig, dictionary.com, wikipedia and mine.

Can you show how trig and surveying don’t satisfy those definitions?

Alleged necessity of empirical testing to confirm scientific hypothesis.
“but there are more appropriate ways [than statistics] of testing [Pythagoras’s theorem]”

Such as?

How do you *empirically* test whether Pythagoras’s theorem is true or false?

“Surveyors test whether trigonometry applies all the time, every time they perform a real world calculation in fact.”

No they don’t. If they apply the theorem and their real-world observations don’t agree, they do *not* thereby conclude that the theorem is disproved. They *always* conclude that the theorem is correct *regardless whether or not* it agrees with real world observations.
(cont.)

If the observed data don’t agree with the theorem, we *always* conclude the observed data are wrong, not the theorem.

Agreed? Please answer yes or no.

“ Pythagoras' theorem has nothing to do with what you are proposing.”

It’s got everything to do with it, because it proves that science can be based on logical deductions from axioms.

In an *empirical* science like ecology, the ecologist hypothesizes, say, a particular frequency distribution of a particular species. If the observed data disagree, it means the hypothesis is wrong.

But in a *logical* science like cartography, the cartographer starts with an axiom, a universally true proposition, and works by logical deduction therefrom. If the observed data disagree, it means the observations are wrong.

Therefore it is not true that science *necessarily* requires empirical “testing”. Yes science must be empirically true. But this can be proved by logical deductions from axioms.

Anyone who has seen the perfect agreement between a map drawn by James Cook and a satellite photo on the one hand, and on the other hand the wildly erroneous maps of the same land by cartographers before Cook, cannot but admit that the difference is in scientific method. It is mere semantics to deny the name of science to the cartography of Cook or the GPS, for no other reason than that their methodology derives from trigonometric logic that is *not* amenable to empirical disproof.

Therefore it is your and spindocs arguments that are mere semantics, not mine. You accept that science using empirical methods can be science. But you deny that science using logical methodology, such as Cooks’, can be science *because* its methodology cannot be empirically disproved. The deep structure of your argument is only this
“Rule 1. Science requires empirical testing of hypotheses.
Rule 2. If it doesn’t, see Rule 1.”

Talk of “domains” does not advance the argument past these semantic issues. Spindoc, you have *not* established that there are natural domains where science does apply, and artificial domains where it doesn’t. Please address the real issues and answer my questions specifically.

“As for your No. 2s I see you mean A to be whatever you want it to be and B can be whatever you want to be at any given time.”

My 2nd proposition means simply that human action *always* entails preferring one action to another.

The statement is universally true, because
a) it describes all human action
b) you can’t cite any real world particular instance of it not being true. If you can, go ahead.
c) you can’t deny it without affirming by your action that the proposition is true, even while you deny it by your words.

Thus even by verbally denying it one can’t help but prove it’s true as a proposition of human action.

Therefore it’s axiomatic.

“you haven't shown the slightest hint that [being able to deduce human action through universal axioms] could be true”

Yes I have, I’ve shown that
a) we can identify axioms of human action, and
b) the principles of logic can and do operate on them
c) scientific knowledge can be derived in this way.

“regale us with a real world universal 'A' and 'B'?”

The proposition is already “real world universal”. There is no more logical need for me to specify what particular action A complies with the proposition, than there is for Newton to specify what particular massive body complies with the law of gravitation. They all do, that’s the point!

It’s the other wary around. Unless you can give a real world example disproving the proposition, you should admit it.

Go ahead.

You are blowing hot and cold in asking me for logical deductions from axioms of which you deny the existence.

I will demonstrate a logical deduction from such axioms on condition that you
a) disprove the universal validity of any of my 3 cited propositions by giving real world examples that don’t comply; or
b) admit that they are universally valid, or
c) agree you cannot later deny the validity of my logical deductions by denying the possibility of axioms of human action that you yourself are completely incapable of disproving.

It is also a false dichotomy to argue that something is *not* science because it *is* philosophy. Both historically and epistemologically, science has come out of natural philosophy. For example Newton’s famous work explaining the law of gravitation was entitled “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”.

To give an example of my 3rd proposition, say we want to grow wheat in a ploughed paddock. Our two factors of production are seed and superphosphate. Adding super will *increase* production up to a point. But thereafter any further addition of super causes a *reduction* in output. Same with seed. Therefore holding all other factors constant, we *cannot indefinitely increase output by indefinitely increasing one factor.* That’s the proposition.

Spare me the semantic quibbles about “optimum” or “constraints”, and personal argumentation based on attributions of my supposed bad faith. Go ahead and give a real-world example of where we can *indefinitely increase production by increasing one factor of production while holding all the other factors constant *.

Or kindly admit that the three propositions are universally true; and let me proceed to demonstrate how we can make logical deductions about axioms of human action that provide scientific explanation and rational proofs and of economic phenomena.

Hume, I think you have it backwards.

If observations do not fit the 'theorem', then yes, the observations need to be tested again to make sure that they are correct. They are not ignored completely.

But this is beside the point, we are not arguing about trigonometry or surveying here.

Your 3 'universally true' basic propositions are not universal.

You think that you have shown that you can derive axioms of human action? Not by a long shot, tell us one oh wise one.

The three basics summarised thus:
1) humans are mortal
2) preferences exist
3) There is a maximum amount we can produce of any given product at any given time.

While preference exist, it does not logically follow mean that there are always preferences and that preference applies to everything.

Nevertheless, that you think that you can logically derive universally true statements about human action from these three basics akin to mathematical theorems that are never wrong, and that it is the observations that are wrong, shows that you don't really understand science.

If several surveyors consistently come up with observations that do not fit the mathematical theorems they use, then the observations deserve further attention, and if the observation hold it would prove that the theorems do not hold universally. That their observations always hold to the theory (so far) speaks to the strength of the theory. That you think you can make a 'logical' science and not have to worry about those pesky observations not fitting is an archaic form of philosophy. Ancient science perhaps, not any modern understanding of the field.

If you think that there are logically derivable universally true axioms that are true about human economic activity, then lets have one. And please make it useful and about economics, not about human mortality or whatever.

Economic modeling often starts with assumptions about what is considered true and then deduces from there. That real-world observations rarely fit the predictions thus derived is no surprise. I see no difference in that approach and what you are proposing.

At the risk of getting caught in the crossfire, I couldn't help but notice a slight flaw in Peter Hume's first "axiom".

>>1) physics imposes limits on human action<<

This can only be theoretically true, since it is impossible to prove empirically. For example, the time it takes for a human being to run 100 metres keeps getting shorter. It is not possible, even with all the information that we have about the human body, to guess when this progress might come to a halt.

Of course, this might not in itself be a problem. You could throw your arms in the air and say "that's stupid, of course there is a limit". But the other "axioms" rely to a certain extent on the validity of the first, which puts it under some additional pressure.

>>2) these limits result in universally true propositions about human action<<

If we knew what those limits were, this might be possible. But we don't. The best we can say is "the existence of hypothetical limits..." which weakens the entire logical structure.

And by the time we get to the last one...

>>3) we can make logically valid deductions from such axioms<<

...we should be more than a little concerned about the stability of our logical house of cards.

There are of course some theorems that behave perfectly under any kind of pressure, but this is by no means evidence that all theorems conform to this standard. So to argue that because Pythagoras "proves that science can be based on logical deductions from axioms", as Peter Hume did earlier, does not lead to the conclusion that "anything-we-choose-to-call-science" has a similarly solid foundation.

Peter, part of the fun of OLO is to try to understand and anticipate where the author is going and by what route they intend getting there. I personally think OLO’ers are quite talented at this, which is why it is one of the most challenging forums.

Sometimes the means of getting to the point can be tortuous. It can be direct, indirect, conditional or indirect-post indexed. Your initial post was pretty direct and you declared up front how you wanted get there, which was good, but not where you wanted to go, which was a “tease”.

Unfortunately, your route and objective were spotted early on and you were headed off at the pass, ambushed actually. After that you lost the initiative and were jammed into tactical defense.

If you wish to make the case that there is a discipline we could call “economic science”, “domestic science” or even “political science”, what is the purpose of such a proposition? What is it you wish to impart to economists from the scientific domain? How does this change the function they perform? And do you expect us to assign scientific skill sets to say an economist?

Would it mean that someone employed as an economist could not only create the economic case for the development of a “proton driven hyperspace drive”, but could also “produce” it? Yes it would however, that person would be trained as an economist “and” a scientist and not an economic scientist.

Would it redefine the skills of say, Ross Garnaut and make him an “economic scientist” rather than just an economist?

All the human domains have cross dependencies, particularly with economics, that’s the way we humans made them however, to try to make a case for a “hybrid” discipline without context and relevance seems odd.

I also note that you again try to redefine human “domains”. You now assign “natural” where science does apply and “artificial” where it doesn’t. This is news to me.

TBC:

Continued;

Whilst we are on the subject “redefinitions”, Could you please stop mixing up Laws (of nature) with rules (man made). It might suit your case but is becoming almost malicious.

There is no such thing as man made “natural” domain, otherwise we would be God. Nature, physics the universe is not and can never be man made. Conversely, there is no such thing as an “artificial” man made domain where science does not apply? Not only is science one of those domains but all domains “use” scientific output in some way. Not really sure where you are trying to go with that Peter?

I think you may be having trouble understanding the nature of human created “domains” or are finding it difficult to make your case “because” of them. As a result you are constantly trying to change or redefine them to make your case, which incidentally, you have still failed to declare. (Are we heading for an “indirect post indexed” with a surprise at the end?).

You can, and you do, try hard to redefine what we all understand science to be. It is a human created domain; it is a set of skills, tools, math and technology that we are developing in order to better understand our natural world. It already embraces an astonishing variety of scientific “techniques”, many of which you have already mentioned and many more we add on an almost daily basis.

They are all man made, as are all the other skill and discipline domains we humans have created. These domains also describe everything about us, our societies, our technology, our politics and what we understand about our environment. They describe us.

So why do you wish to change elements of the definition of what it is to be human?

My opponents are reduced to arguing that humans might be immortal, or that observations might disprove Pythagoras’s theorem.

Okay. And by the same token the moon might fly out of its orbit tomorrow; or observations might prove that 2 + 2 = 9 if you say so.

But you don’t conclude thereby that physical science is impossible, do you?

By the way, my Oxford English Dictionary defines “science” thus:
“1. (arch.) knowledge. 2. Systematic and formulated knowledge… 4. … natural science, one dealing with material phenomena and based mainly on observation, experiment, and inductions, as chemistry, biology;… pure science, one depending on deductions from self-evident truths, as mathematics, logic…”

Your mistake is in thinking
a) that the scientific methodology of the natural sciences is the *one and only* model of scientific methodology for all sciences. As the OED shows, and as I have shown, that is not so.
b) that “economic science” must mean *empirical* economic science. You are quite right in saying economics is not a science in that sense, and the pretensions of positivist economists such as Ross Garnaut or Ben Bernanke are false.

But that doesn’t mean economic science is not possible. It just means their empirical methodology is wrong - because all human data are *subjectively* motivated. It means the scientific methodology proper to economics is *logical* not *empirical*.

If you can’t give any real-world examples of human actions disproving my three universally true propositions – and be honest, you can’t, else you would have done so immediately – it means I have proved,
and my opponents have been COMPLETELY UNABLE to disprove that
• science can use logical deductions from axioms
• science does not necessarily, and does not by definition require empirical testing of hypotheses
• the fact that we cannot have final knowledge does not preclude the possibility of science
• we are capable of identifying axioms of human action in consequence of natural scarcity
• we are capable of valid logical deductions therefrom
• therefore economic science is possible.

Q.E.D.

Peter Hume,

"we are capable of valid logical conclusions therefrom"

George Bernard Shaw said:
"If all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they would still not reach a conclusion.

(Doesn't sound promising.)

Hey Hume, in the interests of moving this discussion forward, I don't really believe that an 'economic science' is impossible.

Theoretically.
A lot of things are theoretically possible.

But you haven't really got there yet, and I'm not sure you can get there from where you are starting.

To put things in perspective, it is theoretically possible to build a geostationary satellite attached by a 'Jacob's Ladder' cable by 'using a few basic engineering and physics principles'. But if you told me that you were starting with a couple of hundred metres of scaffolding and some 4x2s, I would understandably be a little sceptical.

It's just not that likely is what I'm saying.

Spindoc, I seem to have stumped you with the simple assertion that there is nothing in the definitions of either science or economics that prevents them from overlapping.

I think your assertion that they are entirely separate disciplines has been laid to rest, no?

But much more importantly, the world is going to hell in a hand-basket, while people with brains like you, Peter Hume, and alas me at times, beat around the proverbial bush discussing the most inane stuff, instead of concentrating on how we can make economics and science work better for us!

Things are looking pretty damn precarious in our near future. We urgently need to get our scientific and economic (and social and political) disciplines into order.

As Pericles said:

<< Lot of heat, not much light. >>

There’s a lot of words in this discussion but not much meaning!

And even if the economic-science-is-real side of the argument won out, or was comprehensively quashed, so what??!!

Sustainability science. And sustainability economics. THIS is what demands our attention!

Peter, nice try Tonto but not so fast,

When we met at the pass last Friday it was suggested to you that you can have such a thing as economic science, provided you mixed a few metaphors, deconstructed and redefined the objects. Your posts are tortuously dedicated to precisely that.

As we have observed, your thrust has been to try to distance science as we know it, away from natural sciences. You have forced yourself into this situation by insisting that there “natural Laws” embodied in the man made construct of economics or that science is not the study of “natural Laws” but a study of man made economic “rules”.

Your lists of redefinitions of science are just that. They are your assumptions.

It is your assumptions that have been challenged and not your proposition. If you can’t or won’t respond to these, you cannot sustain your proposition. But you knew that from the outset of course, which is why you have lunged for the trophy and headed for the hills.

Which leaves you where exactly?

Bye the way, can we have our wickets back please.

Bugsy
Thank you. So I will proceed on the basis that economic science is possible, and conclude this thread.

I must now seek to persuade you that we can derive significant explaining power about economic phenomena that is much more probable than building a geostationary satellite with a couple of hundred metres of scaffolding and some 4x2s.

And I must try to persuade Ludwig that such discussion is not inane – it’s ane – has enormous practical relevance, and is particularly indispensable in a discussion of ecological sustainability.

Ludwig, I posted this which is precisely on topic, without any replies, and would appreciate your critique of it: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3839

Spindoc
Your argument comprises
1. attributing bad faith to me (I’m tortuously dedicated to facile re-definitions)
2. mind-reading and misrepresentation (I’m wishing to change elements of the definition of what it is to be human)
3. semantic quibbling – science “as we know it” means natural science. Don’t tell me – tell the Oxford Dictionary.

Ludwig has disposed of your false argument there can be no overlap between science and economic phenomena. The rest is just you circularly defining science to be concerned with “natural laws”. It’s not me re-defining science, it’s you. Presumably according to that theory, man is not part of nature nor subject to the laws of physics.

You don’t explain why physical laws cannot have knowable logical consequences for human action, and therefore for human production, nor why the resulting rational and systematic knowledge of cause and effect, or observed tendencies, cannot be properly termed scientific. So you haven’t begun to join issue. Perhaps you could start by falsifying my three universally true propositions?

Any reply by way of evasion, or personal or circular argumentation concedes the gneral issue.

All
Thanks for your contributions.

Ummm, hold on, Peter Hume. Haven't you forgotten something?

>>If you can’t give any real-world examples of human actions disproving my three universally true propositions – and be honest, you can’t, else you would have done so immediately...<<

What happened to the 100 metres?

>>1) physics imposes limits on human action<<

My observation was that this cannot be true, since it is not possible to define those limits. Even if the record for a human being to run 100 metres comes down to 9 seconds, and stays there for fifty years, there is no certainty that this represents the limit. In fact you could pretty well guarantee that mark is going to be beaten.

The physics hasn't changed. You still need a combination of explosive energy, followed by the ability to maintain maximum output for the longest time. But that "limit" continues to be breached.

As you yourself point out:

>>...science does not necessarily, and does not by definition require empirical testing of hypotheses<<

So my hypothesis stands: physics does not impose identifiable limits on human action

Which, as I pointed out earlier, kinda blows your entire list of "conclusions" out of the water.

Q, as you would say, ED

I think you misunderstood me Peter Hume.

I don't just think that an economic science is just as likely as building a geostationary satellite with a couple of hundred metres of scaffolding and some 4x2s.

I think that all you have at the moment is the scaffolding and 4x2s. Your 'universal axioms' appear to be about as relevant to a mature science as some 4x2s are to orbital engineering.

There are a great many technical challenges to overcome between here and there.

And please, don't be under the illusion that what you will get out of your 'logical science' will be immediately applicable to explaining anything in the real world. That's what Aristotle thought. If you want to explain the real world you have to test explanations under real world conditions, that's the only way we can know if they are real.

In this manner, surveyors 'test' Pythagoras theorem all the time (under 'normal' conditions). A physicist however might be able to think of a situation where the bending of space time might allow the theorem to be invalid, and can also test this. It is conceivable that nothing is 'universal'. Sometimes it's even hard to tell if something is even 'commonplace'.

Dear Peter,

In defence of the earlier posters I wonder if, in their enthusiasm to engage with you in conversation on the topics you raised, they had not noticed your opening question was rhetorical and answered by the last paragraph.

The question you wanted discussed was "How we can know such economic laws?"

I think the only way would consist of:
1. Applying intellectual rigour to the proposed or hypothesised economic laws,
2. Testing the validity of such economic laws against the real world they are trying to describe, and
3. Confirmation of the science of such economic laws through their predictive explaining power.

If such economic laws fail to provide economic prediction, however useful their explaining power, then we only have something better described as economic history than economic science.

You guys are sawing sawdust.

Pericles
“it is not possible to define those limits [ie of physics]”

Can you please stop talking past me and actually answer my specific questions:
1. We can’t say people are mortal because they might be immortal, right? Is that what you’re arguing?
2. We can’t say that human action always consists of preferring one thing to another, right? Why not? What would be an example, in theory or practice, of where it doesn’t?
3. We can’t say that we can’t indefinitely increase production by increasing one factor while holding other factors constant? Why not?
4. Even granting that we can’t have final knowledge of the limits of physics you don’t therefore conclude that physical science is impossible, do you?

Bugsy
I'm aware that axioms don't make a science.

But you are back to arguing that observations might disprove Pythagoras’s theorem.

Surveyors *don’t* empirically test Pythagoras’s theorem because they hold it to be true whether or not the empirical data agree with it. Yes, you might say, that’s because it’s such a good theory the data always agree. But I don’t mean just *in practice*. Even *in theory* how could it possibly be empirically disproved? Don’t *assert* it. *Prove* it.

It’s like saying 2 + 2 = 4 could be falsified by empirical observation. How? It’s correct by definition. It’s a logical construct.

Similarly, Pythagroas’s theorem follows from the intrinsic logic of right-angled triangles. How could you “observe” a right-angled triangle that doesn’t comply with it?

“A physicist however might be able to think of a situation where the bending of space time might allow the theorem to be invalid, and can also test this."

No need for a physicist. *I* can. Draw the triangle on a globe.

But so what? It would no more follow that economic science is impossible, than that physical science is impossible. The entire argument depends on the idea that science by definition must be empirical. It’s mere semantics. Don’t argue with me about it, argue with the OED, dictionary.com and Wikipedia.

Wm Trevor

Thanks for that, yes I agree.

I think the only way would consist of:
"1. Applying intellectual rigour to the proposed or hypothesised economic laws."

For example, the deductions have to logically valid. Sounds obvious but look at the problem these guys are having.

"2. Testing the validity of such economic laws against the real world they are trying to describe, and"

Yes. If real world evidence contradicts them, they would be invalid. The problem is that human behaviour in general, and economic behaviour in particular, being so complex and variable, such evidence must always be problematic. That's the reason everyone thinks that economic science (by which they mean empirical science) is impossible!

"3. ...economic science"

Yes but again it will come down to the problem of evidence. Using only the empirical method, the evidence can give reason for concluding for *and* against a given hypothesis. Using only the empirical method, some (Keynesians) will say that economic crises happen *despite* printing money, others that it happens *because of* printing money. The empirical method gives no way out of these problems, hence people's belief economic science is impossible - they mean empirical economic science.

But in that sense, economics is no better and no worse off than ecology, which faces similar problems of complexity and variability.

Faced with the same complexity and variability involved, the logical method also cannot definitely quantify - because subjective evaluations cannot be quantified. It produces qualitative tendencies. But it is more able to rule out certain possibilities. For example, it can rule out the "social construct" theory, i.e. the infantile idea that we can make any economic reality we want just by passing laws. We can't. It's not logically possible.

Now I'm confused, Peter Hume.

You wrote this:

>>Let’s cut to the chase. Do you deny that:
1) physics imposes limits on human action?
2) these limits result in universally true propositions about human action?
3) we can make logically valid deductions from such axioms?<<

Now you ask...

>>Can you please stop talking past me and actually answer my specific questions<<

I was under the impression that these three were your "specific questions". If you have now abandoned these, how was I supposed to know?

All you have come back with is some different, completely tangential and - frankly - weird questions that you want me to answer. Are these your new "specific questions"?

Ok, let's have a look at them.

>>1. We can’t say people are mortal because they might be immortal, right? Is that what you’re arguing?<<

Nope. Where did you pull that one from?

>>2. We can’t say that human action always consists of preferring one thing to another, right? Why not? What would be an example, in theory or practice, of where it doesn’t?<<

You've completely lost me on that one. Where have I even approached the topic from that direction?

>>3. We can’t say that we can’t indefinitely increase production by increasing one factor while holding other factors constant? Why not?<<

What's with the double negative? Or the triple, if you include the final question. What's wrong with "We can say that we can indefinitely increase production by increasing one factor while holding other factors constant? Why?"

Oh. I see. It doesn't make sense. Hmmm.

>>4. Even granting that we can’t have final knowledge of the limits of physics you don’t therefore conclude that physical science is impossible, do you?<<

What is "physical science" in this context? And where does "physical science" interact with "economic science"?

There is, categorically, no science to economics itself.

There are a lot of complex equations. As there are in meteorology.

But you can't use them to predict next Friday's weather.

Same for economics.

You may get close, but you will never be right.

Except accidentally.

I am not arguing that a science of economics is impossible.

Just as I am also not arguing that a science of astrology is impossible.

It is quite difficult to prove things impossible, unless they can only be posited in an abstract space.

In the abstract, it may indeed be possible to extrapolate the universe from a few universally held theorems.

I just don't see it happening.

Also I think it's a bit weird and not at all logical to say, if you cannot think of an example that proves that a proposition cannot exist, then it is proven to be possible.

All it means is that the proposition hasn't been proven to be impossible.

A different question to ask would probably be: if a science of economics were to exist, would it be more likely or useful to be an empirical science that attempts to test it's hypotheses the value exchanges of human interactions or would it be more likely or useful to be a logical science that derives it's explanations of 'human action' (whatever that's supposed to mean) from universally held axioms?

Either way, there's the Problem of Indcution to consider. Explaining past events or human actions won't predict the future.

In any case, if an science of economics did exist, it would not be like any other science, that's for sure. It sure as hell wouldn't be like surveying.

Could you describe this science of economics for us and tell us what it would do. What would the major benefits be? If I were voluntarily funding your research, what's in in it for me?

Pericles
More evasion. Ho hum. I don’t know why you bother. Perhaps your sarcasm and dishonesty impresses you.

Bugsy
If your standard of proof – invincible ignorance – were applied to any other science, no science would be admitted.

An ecologist might say “Many species find it harder to make a living at the poles than at the tropics.”

“Ah no but” say smart-arse Pericles “The limits of physics cannot be defined” and sits back smugly, as if he had made some kind of meaningful objection.

“But” says Bugsy “A physicist on another planet - or a parallel universe – might be able to prove that the melting temperature of water is something different entirely.” Uh-huh. So what?

Meanwhile spindoc says “You are confusing the domains that I have in my head unexplained. No mere human could grasp the laws of nature without impermissibly crossing domains and thus trying to redefine what it is to be human.”

Honestly, you guys are making heavier weather of it than is warranted, and exposing yourselves as a chorus of braying asses in the process.

“ if a science of economics were to exist, would it be more likely or useful to be an empirical science … or … useful to be a logical science that derives it's explanations of 'human action' (whatever that's supposed to mean) from universally held axioms?”

Bugsy! I’ve been trying to establish the part before your first comma for gossake! You don’t accept it, remember?

As for the part after it, what do you think the rest of the argument has been about? It’s like you haven’t understood a word I’ve said.

“ ‘human action’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean)”
There’s that invincible ignorance again. What do you think it’s supposed to mean?

Obviously there’s no point discussing it further, because you’ve either got a mental block, or an emotional block that is preventing you from thinking straight.

I could say “I got some milk at the shop” and you guys would be telling me that the sub-atomic structure of the compounds constituting it were ultimately unknowable.

Honestly, I don't know why you're complaining about the responses you get when you ask the internet to comment about trivial conjectures.

And before you say 'it's not trivial', remember that you are asking anonymous commenters on the internet.

Sarcasm, Peter Hume? Evasion? Dishonesty?

Are you sure?

>>Pericles More evasion. Ho hum. I don’t know why you bother. Perhaps your sarcasm and dishonesty impresses you.<<

It is a fairly simple request.

Did you ask those three questions.

Did you notice the answers.

If so, what are you grizzling about.

If not, go check.

There's only one person evading here, and it sure ain't me.

Peter

You requested my response to your general thread of 1 August 2010:

I’m not sure how it relates to the debate on science and economics on this thread.

The way we conduct economic calculation is very relevant to ecological sustainability, but I can’t see how the presence or absence of economic science, depending on one’s definition, is relevant.

Whether science fits within economics or next to it and separate from it is really very ethereal, as I see it.

But the extremely dumb way that we measure GDP and calculate economic growth overall is enormously relevant.

You wrote in the other thread:

<< The hostility of many environmentalists to producing things at a profit seems misguided, because the alternative is to produce them at a loss, which uses up more resources, and is less ecologically sustainable. >>

I don’t think many environmentalists are hostile towards the profit motive. They’re hostile towards the potential environmental damage done by some economic activities.