From: pi101@cus.cam.ac.uk (P.M. Inman)
Subject: Re: What is economics?
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:05:33 GMT

People get so upset that economists are not "proper scientists" and damn then
by association with the wider, wilder community of social sciences.  It is not
worth challenging the detractors of "economics as a science" to come up with a
rigorous definition of a scientist, nor economists to come up with a
counter-definition of what constitutes a "professional economist".  Either
way, you would end up with a tribal definition, along the lines of:

  An X (fill in the designation) is someone recognised by other X's
  as being one of them.

or the exclusive variety:

  A non-X is someone recognised by X's (defined above) as not
  being one of them.

I confess that I was originally attracted to economics because it seemed to
offer a way of reducing the complexities of human behaviour to physics, i.e.
the very thing of which non-economists accuse economists.  The analogy was
like the movement of molecules in a gas:  life may seem very complicated if
you are a molecule, but step back, as we scientists can, and it all becomes
much more explicable.

Still, that was the era when we were taught about the inevitability of
economic growth and how the only problems were how to divide up the spoils
fairly.  My plea of mitigation is that there were a lot of us at it and I had
had a sheltered upbringing.

Of course, all along there was Karl Popper in the background, telling us
about the need for falsifiability in a scientific statement, and there was
Hayek and von Mises banging on about complex systems and the futility of
trying to draw inferences from large numbers and economic statistics.  But
they could safely be dismissed as silly old twits.  After all, computers were
getting better and better and before long we would be able to collect all the
missing data and find out the fundamental truths about these so-called
complex systems.

Actually, it was "The Poverty of Historicism" which finally made me see the
light (Karl Popper again).  I never did finish it, but early on, he convinced
me of the unpredictability of human affairs which involve an increase in
human understanding; in particular, economic growth.  I leave the argument as
an exercise for the reader.

So, it's almost impossible to make economic predictions, at least not the
sort which would persuade intellectually rigorous scientists to admit us to
their ranks.  True, you can make Popper-style scientific statements about
economics by stating the criteria of falsification.  The trouble is, almost
eveything you say in economics not only turns out to be falsifiable, but IS
falsified.

How come there are still so many economists employed by governments, banks,
brokers, you name it, and at hefty salaries too?  Well, if I knew that, I
wouldn't be here.  But I guess the human appetite for soothsaying is
boundless and the more you have riding on your decisions, the more you want
to be reassured.  But don't blame the soothsayers;  they're just trying to
earn a living.  

So let's hear it for economics.  Call it what you like, the study of the way
people behave when confronted with a choice, the way they try to wriggle out
the choice and the consequences when things go wrong, and the ramifications
of this into human societies, is endlessly fascinating.

I wish I'd have studied the History and Philosophy of Science while I had the
chance.  Now there's a subject which attracts even more venom from scientists
than does economics.   
-- 
Philip Inman.............................e-mail: pi101@cus.cam.ac.uk
Open Systems Development Programme........JANET: pi101@uk.ac.cam.cus
Cambridge University Computer Laboratory....tel: [+44 (int); 0 (UK)] 223-335442
Cambridge, England CB2 3QG..................fax: [+44 (int); 0 (UK)] 223-334679
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5780 talk.politics.misc:69804 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13862 sci.econ:9858