Is economics even a science?

There will be some of you who will be somewhat shocked by today's title. I think it's a legitimate question. When we reflect upon what Sheldrake presented and argued, we recognize that it is focused very much on what we call the "natural (or hard) sciences". The Queen of these is, of course, Physics, but chemistry and biology are well represented at court. Nevertheless, it is worth asking ourselves what constitutes a "science".

First and foremost, we should recall that the word "science" comes from the Latin verb scire which means "to know". Science is, then, at heart, a way of knowing. As such, it is more of a method than object. As most of us were taught in school, this method was considered the only really legitimate pathway to knowledge (and by extension, truth). The scientist came up with an hypothesis, performed experiments to confirm or refute that hypothesis, and based on the data and evidence collected through experimentation, s/he would revise the hypothesis and continue their research. Other scientists were invited to join in and contribute. In this cooperative and disciplined way, our knowledge base grew and progress was achieved. One of the strongest advantages of this approach was that if we knew what causes brought about which effects, we could make reasonable and accurate predictions. If this and this are the case, and that happens, then we would know the outcome.

A first look at economics in this light, however, makes it pale by comparison. Oh sure, you can form an economic hypothesis, but how do you perform an economic experiment without potentially endangering the well-being of a huge number of people? Breaking economic relationships down into manageable pieces in order to perform experiments, however, so changes the nature of those relationships that they no longer are valid for making predictions based on the outcomes. So, economics is certainly not a science in the same sense that physics, biology or chemistry are sciences.

Economics, then, was forced down a very different path. At best, it could attempt to objectively observe economic phenomena and then based on those observations, derive and formulate theories that would explain them. If this and that condition arose in a market, then one could predict what the consequences would be. Unfortunately, economics' hit rate was far lower than that of the natural sciences. It is not just that economic phenomena are perhaps more complex than physical, biological or chemical ones ... and we can well imagine how complex many of these are ... rather, there were too many factors that could affect the outcomes, not the least of which was the highly unpredictable role that people play in these situations. Humans are particularly good at surprising even themselves and doing something totally unexpected. That makes life for the economist particularly difficult.

This doesn't mean that there's nothing to salvage here and that we should just toss economics out the window. Given the role it plays in our lives, there must be a way of dealing with it, and I believe we can find some sound common ground upon which to stand. What this is and what it means for economics in particular, however, we'll look at next time.