Quote Originally Posted by Presley Cannady View Post
How many practicing alchemists conceded their trade was a bunch of nonsense? For economics to amount to science, it must make testable predictions that hold up under scrutiny. It doesn't. End of story.
Economists do scientific research because their methods are scientific (unlike alchemists' methods*). The scientific results are statements about probabilities, not about exact outcomes (even physics ceased in to claim that it can do more in many cases). These probabilities can be tested and be falsified if wrong.


I do not expect everyone to be an economist to understand that economics is a science, but I expect at the very least that those who attempt to deny economics the status of a science do know what a science is.

Furthermore, I expect that no activity that has encompassed two centuries and ten thousands of people be ignored, such as ignoring the huge activity in regard to making testable predictions and testing them.


Scientific fields are commonly divided into two major groups: natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life), and social sciences, which study human behavior and societies. These groupings are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science...lassifications


*: Guilt by association, a fairly dirty rhetorical trick. Well, at least it's more sophisticated than outright ignorance about the real world (of economic research).