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?