is economics science

Is economics a science?

Blogger Don Luskin takes exception with my description of economics as

a type of science. He writes:

Where is the utterly essential ingredient of repeatable

experimental verification of falsifiable hypotheses? Without

that--and economics surely doesn't have it--there can be no claim

to science or the scientific method.

I disagree, for two reasons (either of which is sufficient to refute

Don's point):

1. Many sciences do not rely on experiments but, instead, use the data

that history provides. Consider an astronomer studying the creation of

galaxies or an evolutionary biologist studying the development of

species. These disciplines, like economics, are primarily

observational rather than experimental, but they are clearly

scientific.

2. The field of economics does use experiments. Vernon Smith won a

Nobel prize for "for having established laboratory experiments as a

tool in empirical economic analysis, especially in the study of

alternative market mechanisms." Today, work in experimental economics

is growing rapidly. (Several Harvard faculty are involved in this

work, most notably Al Roth.)

One could argue that economics is a particularly underdeveloped

science, that there is still much we do not know. Here I would agree.

But telling today's students that the study of the economy is not a

science is like telling a young Nicolaus Copernicus that the study of

planetary motion is not a science, or a young Charles Darwin that the

study of species is not a science. They will ultimately prove you

wrong.

permanent link

Links to this post: