<< 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.