That some sciences can't use the scientific method (do experiments etc) like some parts of geology, don't counter my point. [Edit: Unless your point really is that you dismiss palaeontology et al in an equal way, too?]
(Or are you arguing that 80% of most everything which aren't based on mathematical proofs are bad?)
Edit: This is an innocent question about getting references to strong claims that a science has 0 "scientific content". I know some people whose integrity and intelligence I trust, which later went the academic track in economics. That gave in total 4 down votes -- but still without a reference?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
That's the best you could deduce from my comment?
For starters, given the main claim I made (that economics is not a science), and considering that whether is true or false is under question, the last thing one could logically ask for, regarding that, would be citations.
For who would make those?
Surely not physicists or mathematicians, etc. (since it's not their job). And surely not economists for it IS their job.
If my claim was true, economists admitting it would be like homeopathists or freudian psychoanalysts saying their fields are non-scientific. It just ain't gonna happen, or it will be marginal at best.
Ever more profoundly though, should we actually evaluate arguments, or only think pre-made thoughts coming to us by way of citations?
Because the latter is not scientific either -- one needs to evaluate citations too. And no, peer review is not infallible in that either (in case one thinks citations are some golden truth they can always accept because they're peer reviewed. In fact a good majority of papers even in hard sciences have been found in meta-studies to be reproducible and others plain wrong (the so-called reproducability crisis).
Assuming it it the same and worse in economics, which is not a hard science, already makes most of my point.
That said, here are some sources:
https://www.amazon.com/Dismal-Science-Economist-Undermines-C... https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Rules-Rights-Wrongs-Science... https://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Modern-Economics-Science-Ideol... https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Mathematical-Politics-Dimin...
You do realize that is how the creationists argue about the biology academics? :-(
The problem is that to show something completely wrong (a year or two ago, you'd probably have linked to Picketty?) is a good way to make a career.
If you want to make a better argument for your position, go to post modernists or some other of the political sciences which generally have disappeared ten years later.
You could make a point, which I'd agree with, that your position is stronger than a conspiracy theory, there are too many precedents. But to dismiss a field of research, you really need better support.
>> should we actually evaluate arguments, or only think pre-made thoughts coming to us by way of citations?
Far outside our areas, that is a good heuristic...
About your references:
* Stephen A. Marglin seems to argue that the small society might be better. It is an interesting and important point. E.g. communism works OK in a village, but not for larger areas. Afaik, he don't present an alternative? (No one thinks the present democracy or capitalism is perfect, we just haven't found anything better.)
* "The Puzzle of Modern Economics: Science or Ideology?" got good reviews, but only by five readers. This seems to be a good overview:
"Is [economy] a.) dangerous mathematical formalism, b.) free market ideology, or c.) a vital guide to practical action? The correct answer, he concludes, is d.) all of the above"
Well, that isn't exactly controversial, is it? :-)
* Dani Rodrik seems to argue about when economy is a useful tool? It don't support that zero scientific content claim, either.
You do realize that I don't care who else argues something in a particular way in another domain, as long as an argument is correct in another domain!
>The problem is that to show something completely wrong (a year or two ago, you'd probably have linked to Picketty?) is a good way to make a career.
Not really. To piss on your own field, is a good way to be considered a pariah, a conspiracy theorist, a nut job etc. Not many grants coming to the self-doubting economist, and policy advisor positions either.
>But to dismiss a field of research, you really need better support.
Like self-deprecating citations from practitioners in the field?
(Even if expecting that is illogical to begin with -- since economics is what puts food on their table --, you'd be surprised how many economists have written self-deprecating critiques about economics)
