I have no references but common sense. Popper gave the best tool I know to differentiate between proper science and quackery, namely falsification. In order to a theory to be falsifiable, there must be a way to prove the theory incorrect. For example, if I see that the newtonian equation for force, acceleration and mass (F = ma) does not hold, in some circumstances, I am able to falsify the theory.
Now, maybe the most fundamental assumtion of economics is that people are utility maximizers. I see no way how this can be falsified. How can I make a choice that proves I was not maximizing my utility?
This, in itself, is enough for me to be confident that economics is not (yet) a proper science, but a bastard of ideology and mathematics.
Again, is it then also reasonable to dismiss palaeontology as having 0 "scientific content", since it can't use the scientific method either?
This is an honest question.
(And I am no economist, but afaik, the economists note that "homo economicus" is a simplification. Most every science use simplified models, especially in the first university courses.)
Experiments are generally needed to "falsify" claims in physics, chemistry etc. Those are experimental sciences, which can use the scientific method. Mathematics et al can falsify "on paper".
Palaeontology, economics and many other sciences can't do either. Why can you dismiss one out of hand, but not the others?
(I have written this quite obvious point 3-4 times now.)
Edit: Your own wikipedia reference have a link to the "scientific method". You should read it. Well worth the trouble. It is arguable the basis for most everything we know about the world.
To be honest, I do not know what you mean by scientific method and I have not made any claims about scientific method. I have made a distinction based falsifiability. Falsifiability does not need experiments, but _observations_.
You have written your "obvious" point now a few times, but you have not written a single unfalsifiable claim of palaeontology or any of the many other sciences you claim that exists.
My hypothesis is simple, _anything_ that claims being a science but makes unfalsifiable claims, is quackery. You see, this hypothesis itself is falsifiable, all you need to make is give a single unfalsifiable claim of a respectful science to prove this hypothesis false. So can you give _one_ example of palaeontology that is unfalsifiable?
(Mathematics does not claim to be a science in popperian sense.)
It is good to look up the scientific method before arguing about Popper.
(Hint: It is in the first sentence of the second paragraph on Popper's wikipedia page. Also, your own link had the term as a related link.)
Enough for me, bye.
Edit: Another hint, Popper was amongst others professor of "logic and scientific method" at the University of London. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page. In short, you argue Popper without understanding what Popper argued about.
I am not quite sure why you want to stick with the scientific method. I brought one very specific idea of Popper, falsification, that I think is relatively ideologue free and very useful to separate science from pseudoscience. And which happens to say that there are fundamental parts of economics that remind much more pseudoscience than proper science.
This discussion is _extremely_ easy to bring forward. All you need to do is to tell _one_ properly scientific theory outside economics that is not falsifiable. If you can't do that, we can hopefully agree that economics is one of the rare species that seem to have some (questionable) scientific credibility without too strong foundation on falsifiable thinking.
"Sceintific method" and falsifiability are not the same. Popper's criterion does not even mention this method and for all I know this is something only people in the US learn (on the other hand, many Americans do not seem to be familiar with the concept of falsifiability).
Paleontology as a whole could not possibly be falsified but a paleontological theory could. E.g. if a paleontologist claimed that certain species lived in a certain period then discovery of a fossil for these species but dated outside this period would falsify such a claim.
Re your point about Palaeontology -- the same goes for economics (and much of astrophysics, for that matter). Which was my point.
(The rest isn't relevant for my point and I am not really an expert. So just post a reference if I'm totally wrong. Popper isn't the last word in the philosophy of science anymore, either.)
"Scientific method" only discussed in US and not relevant to Popper? :-) As I wrote to Beefield, in the end:
Hint: [The scientific method] is in the first sentence of the second paragraph on Popper's wikipedia page.
...
Another hint, Popper was amongst others professor of "logic and scientific method" at the University of London. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page. In short, you argue Popper without understanding what Popper argued about.
Sorry, I don't see how it does. Could you show an example of a falsifiable economic theory? Thanks for the hint by the way, but it looks like a non sequitur to me. How does it follow that I don't know something from the Popper's job title?
To be fair, there are falsifiable economic theories. For example some theories regarding market failures, like the adverse selection in asymmetrical information markets[1]. We _could_ observe that there is a market that fulfills the criteria for market of lemons, but prices lemons and cherries distinctively.
My issue with economics is that some of the deep core assumptions (utility maximization, strong form of efficient markets etc.) violate so egregiously the falsifiability test.
So you give up on my point regarding experimental sciences (which was what Popper was about) and the rest -- like economy, palaeontology etc?
The scientific method is what is used by the experimental ("hard") sciences. Do you really not know this?
This is the start of the second paragraph of Popper's wikipedia page, defining what he wrote about:
"Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favour of empirical falsification: A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments. ..."
Popper even was a professor of logic and the scientific method...
I am sorry, I have to soon assume I'm being trolled here.
Edit: You can e.g. also see the discussion of Popper's work here, where it is also discussed explicitly that he argues about how the scientific method works: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno
You ignored that I argued your questions about Popper is not relevant for my point [edit: if nothing else, that argument also applies to astrophysics, archaeology, history, etc], so your dismissal here forces me to dismiss you as a serious debater.
Economy, palaeontology, archaeology, history and astrophysics can use computer models, look for data in the nature etc. Those can disqualify hypotheses. But you can't use the normal scientific method.
I asked for references to disqualify economics (which aren't from obvious idealogical sources) -- none are presented. That tells me all I need to know.
I don't need the epistemology of Popper or the more modern philosophers of science for my argument -- there is a difference between experimental sciences and the rest. The point is: To disqualify one of these sciences because it isn't hard, you need to explain why don't also disqualify the rest of them.
If arguing about Popper and the scientific method is really your interest and not trolling, go ask an expert instead of asking me for what you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
To disqualify one of these sciences because it isn't hard, you need to explain why don't also disqualify the rest of them.
All of them should be disqualified as well, with the exception of astrophysics which IS a hard science. Who said it isn't? Just because you can't directly observe from nearby a remote star to falsify your hypothesis etc doesn't mean you can't look at its energy emissions, radiation shifts due to speed, gravity effects to nearby bodies from its mass and volume etc. And a lot of astrophysics stuff related to composition of matter, nuclear reactions in a star, etc. are just plain physics. Not to mention when it cames to planets in the solar system, astrophysics very much can go (send probes etc) and gather empirical evidence directly.
History is no more "scientific" than economics -- both are ideological battlefields, where each thing is seen through the prism of the current preferences in each practitioner's era and circles.
Regarding palaeontology and archaeology both are full of BS too, but in the spectrum of hard vs soft sciences are closer to hard sciences than economics or history are, mostly the parts dealing with description and taxonomy of findings rather than their wild theorizing.
Hmm, fusion and particle physics might be too well known and _relatively_ simple that energy output and spectra can say what happens? You might be correct regarding astrophysics, especially since they do have many billions of examples to study.
Regarding your judgements on the rest of the fields, I'd really see better support for your claims. They will all look different with time, that is what research is, but dismissals of thousands of really smart people's work just need better motivation.
Some people just don't have much of an ideological connection to religion, sports or politics. At a minimum, I doubt that the departments in a majority of the world's economy departments have the same agenda. :-)
Comments
I have no references but common sense. Popper gave the best tool I know to differentiate between proper science and quackery, namely falsification. In order to a theory to be falsifiable, there must be a way to prove the theory incorrect. For example, if I see that the newtonian equation for force, acceleration and mass (F = ma) does not hold, in some circumstances, I am able to falsify the theory.
Now, maybe the most fundamental assumtion of economics is that people are utility maximizers. I see no way how this can be falsified. How can I make a choice that proves I was not maximizing my utility?
This, in itself, is enough for me to be confident that economics is not (yet) a proper science, but a bastard of ideology and mathematics.
Again, is it then also reasonable to dismiss palaeontology as having 0 "scientific content", since it can't use the scientific method either?
This is an honest question.
(And I am no economist, but afaik, the economists note that "homo economicus" is a simplification. Most every science use simplified models, especially in the first university courses.)
I know nothing about palaeontology. Can you give an example of unfalsifiable claim of palaeontology?
Yes, classical physics is a simplification, but it is a _falsifiable_ simplification, unlike the utility maximizer.
Note that falsifiability has nothing to do with making experiments.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Experiments are generally needed to "falsify" claims in physics, chemistry etc. Those are experimental sciences, which can use the scientific method. Mathematics et al can falsify "on paper".
Palaeontology, economics and many other sciences can't do either. Why can you dismiss one out of hand, but not the others?
(I have written this quite obvious point 3-4 times now.)
Edit: Your own wikipedia reference have a link to the "scientific method". You should read it. Well worth the trouble. It is arguable the basis for most everything we know about the world.
To be honest, I do not know what you mean by scientific method and I have not made any claims about scientific method. I have made a distinction based falsifiability. Falsifiability does not need experiments, but _observations_.
You have written your "obvious" point now a few times, but you have not written a single unfalsifiable claim of palaeontology or any of the many other sciences you claim that exists.
My hypothesis is simple, _anything_ that claims being a science but makes unfalsifiable claims, is quackery. You see, this hypothesis itself is falsifiable, all you need to make is give a single unfalsifiable claim of a respectful science to prove this hypothesis false. So can you give _one_ example of palaeontology that is unfalsifiable?
(Mathematics does not claim to be a science in popperian sense.)
It is good to look up the scientific method before arguing about Popper.
(Hint: It is in the first sentence of the second paragraph on Popper's wikipedia page. Also, your own link had the term as a related link.)
Enough for me, bye.
Edit: Another hint, Popper was amongst others professor of "logic and scientific method" at the University of London. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page. In short, you argue Popper without understanding what Popper argued about.
I am not quite sure why you want to stick with the scientific method. I brought one very specific idea of Popper, falsification, that I think is relatively ideologue free and very useful to separate science from pseudoscience. And which happens to say that there are fundamental parts of economics that remind much more pseudoscience than proper science.
This discussion is _extremely_ easy to bring forward. All you need to do is to tell _one_ properly scientific theory outside economics that is not falsifiable. If you can't do that, we can hopefully agree that economics is one of the rare species that seem to have some (questionable) scientific credibility without too strong foundation on falsifiable thinking.
How can you have an opinion on that, after writing that you don't know what it is -- despite talking about Popper...?
I told you I didn't need that for my argument.
Bye.
"Sceintific method" and falsifiability are not the same. Popper's criterion does not even mention this method and for all I know this is something only people in the US learn (on the other hand, many Americans do not seem to be familiar with the concept of falsifiability).
Paleontology as a whole could not possibly be falsified but a paleontological theory could. E.g. if a paleontologist claimed that certain species lived in a certain period then discovery of a fossil for these species but dated outside this period would falsify such a claim.
Re your point about Palaeontology -- the same goes for economics (and much of astrophysics, for that matter). Which was my point.
(The rest isn't relevant for my point and I am not really an expert. So just post a reference if I'm totally wrong. Popper isn't the last word in the philosophy of science anymore, either.)
"Scientific method" only discussed in US and not relevant to Popper? :-) As I wrote to Beefield, in the end:
Hint: [The scientific method] is in the first sentence of the second paragraph on Popper's wikipedia page.
...
Another hint, Popper was amongst others professor of "logic and scientific method" at the University of London. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page. In short, you argue Popper without understanding what Popper argued about.
Sorry, I don't see how it does. Could you show an example of a falsifiable economic theory? Thanks for the hint by the way, but it looks like a non sequitur to me. How does it follow that I don't know something from the Popper's job title?
To be fair, there are falsifiable economic theories. For example some theories regarding market failures, like the adverse selection in asymmetrical information markets[1]. We _could_ observe that there is a market that fulfills the criteria for market of lemons, but prices lemons and cherries distinctively.
My issue with economics is that some of the deep core assumptions (utility maximization, strong form of efficient markets etc.) violate so egregiously the falsifiability test.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons
So you give up on my point regarding experimental sciences (which was what Popper was about) and the rest -- like economy, palaeontology etc?
The scientific method is what is used by the experimental ("hard") sciences. Do you really not know this?
This is the start of the second paragraph of Popper's wikipedia page, defining what he wrote about:
"Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favour of empirical falsification: A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments. ..."
Popper even was a professor of logic and the scientific method...
I am sorry, I have to soon assume I'm being trolled here.
Edit: You can e.g. also see the discussion of Popper's work here, where it is also discussed explicitly that he argues about how the scientific method works: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno
Thanks, judging by your refusal to answer my question you do seem to understand that your position is indefensible.
You ignored that I argued your questions about Popper is not relevant for my point [edit: if nothing else, that argument also applies to astrophysics, archaeology, history, etc], so your dismissal here forces me to dismiss you as a serious debater.
Enough.
Economy, palaeontology, archaeology, history and astrophysics can use computer models, look for data in the nature etc. Those can disqualify hypotheses. But you can't use the normal scientific method.
I asked for references to disqualify economics (which aren't from obvious idealogical sources) -- none are presented. That tells me all I need to know.
I don't need the epistemology of Popper or the more modern philosophers of science for my argument -- there is a difference between experimental sciences and the rest. The point is: To disqualify one of these sciences because it isn't hard, you need to explain why don't also disqualify the rest of them.
If arguing about Popper and the scientific method is really your interest and not trolling, go ask an expert instead of asking me for what you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
All of them should be disqualified as well, with the exception of astrophysics which IS a hard science. Who said it isn't? Just because you can't directly observe from nearby a remote star to falsify your hypothesis etc doesn't mean you can't look at its energy emissions, radiation shifts due to speed, gravity effects to nearby bodies from its mass and volume etc. And a lot of astrophysics stuff related to composition of matter, nuclear reactions in a star, etc. are just plain physics. Not to mention when it cames to planets in the solar system, astrophysics very much can go (send probes etc) and gather empirical evidence directly.
History is no more "scientific" than economics -- both are ideological battlefields, where each thing is seen through the prism of the current preferences in each practitioner's era and circles.
Regarding palaeontology and archaeology both are full of BS too, but in the spectrum of hard vs soft sciences are closer to hard sciences than economics or history are, mostly the parts dealing with description and taxonomy of findings rather than their wild theorizing.
Hmm, fusion and particle physics might be too well known and _relatively_ simple that energy output and spectra can say what happens? You might be correct regarding astrophysics, especially since they do have many billions of examples to study.
Regarding your judgements on the rest of the fields, I'd really see better support for your claims. They will all look different with time, that is what research is, but dismissals of thousands of really smart people's work just need better motivation.
Some people just don't have much of an ideological connection to religion, sports or politics. At a minimum, I doubt that the departments in a majority of the world's economy departments have the same agenda. :-)