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