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?