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.