Economics isn’t science. In science you have the scientific method, control and experimental studies that can validate a hypothesis. that’s pretty impractical to do as an economist. Economists often describe their field as the study of human incentives, which is basically the study of human decision making, which is basically reading minds. It’s a worthy subject of study, but we put far too much faith in it that what’s warrented.
> In science you have the scientific method, control and experimental studies that can validate a hypothesis.
Astronomy, Cosmology, Epidemiology, Geology, Economics. You definitely can’t do experiments in cosmology and good luck with epidemiology or geology. Microeconomics is actually much, much more experimental than most of the rest of that list.
You can make predictions, then test these based on observational data.
The case of the validation of the age of the Earth, something widely accepted as unknowable as late as 1900, and established to within 1% of its accepted value by the 1950s, is a case in point.
It is not possible to go back in time to measure the age of the Earth. It is possible to combine measurements and observations, of radioactive decay, of magnetic switching magnetic orientation in seafloor cores, of corresponding coastlines, of similar (or different) fossil records, of genetic drift noted DNA sequences, of rocks obtained from other bodies (including the Moon and Mars).
Naomi Oreskes has written of the development of plate tectonics from crackpot theory to the foundational concept of all Terrestrial geology, over fifty years, being formally accepted in 1965.
The discovery of helium, Dr. John Snow's Broad Street pump observations, validation of Einstein's space-time predictions through eclipse observations and GPS clock desynchronisation, of black holes, exoplanatary discoveries, use of Cephid variables to validated the expanding universe hypothesis, and measurement of gravity waves, would be examples of scientific experiments in the fields of astronomy,cosmology, epidemiology, and geology.
Economics needs to admit to falsifiability or stop considering itself a science.
The primary barrier to that latter is that special pleading allows economics to continue entertaining numerous highly-attractive falsehoods. Noteably: exemption to the laws of thermodynamics.
As well as lesser sins including an intentional ignorance of much of its own history and formative theory.
To add to this, econometricians and statisticians are leading the calls for causal inference. Economists embedded in Google, Netflix, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. are at the forefront of the fields, speaking to how theory and practice play out (sometimes called techonomists).
While economics doesn't lend itself a physics or psychology laboratory to teach its basic principles, that doesn't mean the field isn't concerned with causal impact of policies suggested by theory. Personally, my observation is that making sure falsifiability and generalizability of theory is at the heart of modern economic discussion.
You mean Econ 101 with Mankiw's textbook? That's not a curriculum, that's a single class. Besides, I doubt any undergraduate program really demonstrates what a professional researcher does.
You might have edited the comment after I read it. Or maybe I just read too quickly. In my view, the field of economics is more defined by journal articles and discussions among economists than by textbooks. For many economists, a theory is more compelling if it is accompanied by a formal model, an illustration of the implied dynamics, and a discussion of how observed history is (in)consistent with those dynamics.
Strange, I thought I answered the spirit of the question. You asked what defines the current "thought" of the field, and how it views empiricism, no?
Or are you really curious about how undergraduates are taught, despite the distinction between the undergraduate curriculum and the professional researcher's view? My introductory economics course used Mankiw's textbook. If I remember correctly, it didn't even use calculus. Imagine a university physics course doing that. I think of that more like high school level. Come to think of it, AP Economics probably would have let me skip that class.
Looking over at my bookshelf, I see Wooldridge's "Introductory Econometrics". That's a pretty good one, with plenty of empirical work. I can't spot my macroeconomics textbook, but I remember it evaluating each model by how consistent its predictions were with observed behavior.
... it occurs to me that someone ought to update Wooldridge's exercises for R-language or Python ...
It may be instructive here to distinguish between Macro, which has had the problem of not being able to produce scientifically valid models, and Micro which has arguably made gains in predictive modeling of parts of the system. (Sort of like physics, where we have strongly predictive pieces, but no accepted TOE?)
What controls and experiments can you do in astronomy?
The scientific method is a thin veneer best left at in the high school curriculum where it belongs. Actual science is vastly more messy and interesting.
You can figure out that there is no luminiferous aether between the planets with an interferometer. You can observe that the light of distant stars is bent by the sun's gravity during an eclipse. You can check that the planets appear in the sky where your celestial mechanics predict them to be. You can find out what elements the stars are made of with a prism.
The rest of those are not experiments, they are descriptions of natural phenomena we have no power of repeating. Which goes to show that you can have a science that does not have experiments but does have observations.
We clearly have different definitions of "experiment". Having a theory (e.g. light is affected by gravity), making a prediction (that star that should be behind the sun will be visible) and then doing an observation fits my definition of experiment. It's more difficult to reproduce that measuring the speeds of falling apples, but eclipses are not that rare and you can always come up with other predictions from you theory and do the corresponding observations.
I would rather argue that we can in fact do experiments in economics as well. It's just harder to draw conclusions from the observations because there are lots of variables you can't control for easily.
Then you've never done real science. The term science has become watered down. People confuse the words science and research and think they mean the same thing. They are not. Science is how we verify that reality operates according to how we believe it does. It is the gold standard. It requires more work than just research
Done enough to have an MSc in experimental particle physics.
But do you have a point that isn't a personal attack?
>Science is how we verify that reality operates according to how we believe it does.
Drop a feather and bowling ball together. Feather drops last. Law of gravity proved wrong.
Science is the removal of the incidental qualities of a phenomenon until only the essential qualities are left. What is incidental and what is essential depend completely on the context.
> The scientific method is a thin veneer best left at in the high school curriculum where it belongs.
Are you seriously belittling the scientific method. It's the central idea within real science.
> Actual science is vastly more messy and interesting.
Actual science relies on the scientific method. Pseudoscience ( like economics, psychology, social "science" ) do not rely on the scientific method.
The problem with economics is that it isn't predictive and testable. That's why you cannot scientifically test capitalism vs communism. Economics is a religion where you worship a prophet ( such as Adams or Marx ) rather than produce testable and verifiable hypothesis.
You can objectively and empirically test assertions in astronomy. You can't in economics.
I'd argue that a principle failing of economics -- and one which can be found to apply to its sibling spin-outs of moral philosophy -- is what W. Brian Arthur has observed: formulation of economic theory, or selection among competing theories for inclusion into pedagogy, virtually always occurs in the context of policy formation. That is, these are inherently political.
And Smith's curt not, that "wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power" (incorrectly attributed elsewhere to Marx), plays into the selection of texts for teaching, the granting of tenure, the establishment of departments. Before the Koch brothers were financing, and calling shots oncurricula and faculty, in Florida and at George Mason University, an earlier oil baron, J.D. Rockefeller, was establishing the Chicago School. Each is curiously mute on that intersection of wealth and power Smith highlighted, particularly as concerns monopoly. A topic almost wholly missing from the Libertarian economics bible by Henry Hazlitt.
