Is Economics considered a science Jow Forums?

Everything is qualitative, no real empirical methods.
It's kind of like philosophy.

This.

Mathematics is a science, but economics became more about philosophy than math, dooming it to the 'soft' or 'pseudo' science hinterlands. Pity.

Attached: 2019.01.08balancesheet.jpg (890x462, 51K)

It had to become that way, there is no way to model the economy accurately.
Imo qualitative approaches to the economy are better than empirical ones, since all the empirical ones (outside of trade games) rely on qualitative assumptions to work in the first place.

it wouldn't be in (((their))) best intrest to call it one

>Is Economics considered a science Jow Forums?

by popper, I think not. Generally speaking, you cant draw a precise line.

PS - evoluton is PSEUDOSCIENCE

+ama

Attached: popper_karl2.jpg.jpg (488x500, 36K)

'sup?

Attached: close-up-diagram-for-influenza-virus-vector-17040065[1].jpg (1000x889, 222K)

Your the fag that asked is Psychology a science not too long ago aren't you?

And I'm the Aussie that agreed to debate you don discord but was too much of a lazy ass.

Attached: Jung Laughing.jpg (503x700, 52K)

>evolution is PSEUDOSCIENCE

This one is a lie. Evolution is the most sensible explanation for life. Even machine learning shows a evolution like progression.

Every iterative process is "evolution like". Sieving sand is an evolution like process.

>'sup?

That is EXACTLY what an evolutionary demon obsessed person would say

>Evolution is the most sensible explanation for life. Even machine learning shows a evolution like progression.

That is EXACTLY what an evolutionary demon obsessed person would say

show me ONE scientific prediction based on evolution? zero nyet nada, its just bs mythology/historiosophy

Attached: appendix.jpg (468x318, 44K)

>Evolution is the most sensible explanation for life
But Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life.

I think he is trying to say cross species evolution is a pseudoscience. Genetic drift and variance is a thing, and epigenetics is a thing. After all, there is not a single fossil record for a missing link between non seed bearing plants and seed bearing plants and simple celled organisms and complex organisms. Basically, all life on earth, and if it is a science it bares the burden of proof not faith.

sometimes. A science needs to be able to accurately and routinely predict a result. They tried to meme Marxism as a "science" in the dialectics, but all they did was force an ideology that had no reflection on humanity or human nature. So the answer is, economics can be a science, but its mostly just fueled by crackpots. It's probably more related to alchemy than chemistry in this example. Able to sometimes shine new discoveries, but mostly being hogwash.

>But Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life.

its entirely circular and thinks from present to past, not past to future which is the MO of science

ever wondered why bugman loce (nu)science so much? there you go, its their mythos.

Attached: scienceTM1.jpg (1024x768, 314K)

No.

Yet mutations in nature hinder and kill visibly. Evo was an idea that was picked up by the Rothschild estate, and paid by one of their foot soldier billionaires to be spread because it wrote the idea of god out of the equation. Even Darwin said further proof was needed, and that was never provided. Proof, and not further hypotheses. After that Hollywood took a hold, and now it basic bodily function are mentioned in textbooks with the "because evolution" tacked on at the end as if that explains anything. It doesn't, but he have an idea we're sold for sure. "Train a child in the way he should go, and he will not turn from it when he is old." It's the great deception designed for us to accept body modification in the future which will doom us.

The study of unlimited wants vs scarcity of resources. Not a science just different theories on how to reach equilibriums.
t. BS Economics

Attached: 5F7555FB-5B9A-44CF-B1EF-5447A4EC8ED9.jpg (738x1024, 160K)

>prediction
science deals in the present, why do you think scientists have to copiously record the conditons of experiments? So you can do them yourself NOW and see if your results are the same. If they are it's good science.

Free exchange is most efficient method of distributing resources and and law of supply and demand is legit. Everything else is nonsense intended to push a political agenda.

Genetic drift exists, epigentics exist, propaganda exists, G-d exists, and proof of biblical accounts all around the world, but the only cross species lifeforms were from spiritual breeding and produced abominations. "As it was in the days of old so it will be in the end."

yes, but economics is a humanistic science with a lot of math, but is still not considered STEM
science in economics is more about economic theories and data analysis, it's not nearly as interesting as STEM fields

As much as philosophy is.

>science deals in the present

yes, it predicts the future based on present and past observation it doesnt make bs ted talks about 8 billions of years and KAA BAMMM science!

what predictions were made by evolution and how many were correct?

Attached: evolutionSCIENCE!!!.png (754x396, 256K)

Yes. Just like (((climate science))) and (((gender studies)))

this picture is retarded in so many levels

>ONE scientific prediction based on evolution?
not prediction, but chinks are making use of it

Attached: ethnostate.png (1218x661, 704K)

Most of it doesn't, but the mathematical part of economics does contain a lot of scientific methods that mathematicians developed because economics needed it.

genetics exist and existed independently of evolution...

>this picture is retarded in so many levels

how so? evolutionist say that toes are useless and vestigial and will die out

Attached: EVOLUTION723575.jpg (785x594, 102K)

it's got large components of pseudoscience like psychology, but also bits of useful stuff like econometrics (same way the field of psychology developed the concept of IQ). Huge amounts of Jewish bullshit everywhere. It's not completely useless like feminism or gender studies. The prevailing school abstracts every human behavior away into mathematical formulas, presumes Africans and Chinese are equally capable of forming monopoly corporations and exploiting their natural resources in the same way, etc.

Attached: 1475027283028.jpg (655x527, 59K)

You're just gonna no true scotsman that genetics isn't evolution.
No converting the disciples of anti-evolution ;^)
Where did all those dinosaurs go and why don't we find more fossils of modern animals? Why is the oldest fossil of grass we can find 100 million years old but the oldest plant fossils are a billion years old?
Why can horses and donkeys produce offspring, lions and tigers can produce offspring, but horses and tigers can't?
Yeah it's all speculation to an extent, but it's by far the most reasonable explanation there is.
Here is a fun thought experiment: How do you know you're not just tied up in a cave somewhere watching the shadows of the real world passing by?

Attached: 1_hwatXSU4lxZRhIBsLH6WVA[1].jpg (797x443, 90K)

>genetics exist and existed independently of evolution
but evolution IS genetically inherited mutations + natural selection

i knew croats had low IQ but jesus...

>no true scotsman that genetics isn't evolution.

who is darwin?
who is mendel?
who was former?
who was later?

>but evolution IS genetically inherited mutations + natural selection

correct, but they never demonstrated "cross-species mutationation". all evolution exp like esch coli were total flops so they did the semantic shuffle (like all hegelians/marxist)

>i knew croats had low IQ but jesus...

That is EXACTLY what an evolutionary demon obsessed limey person would say

Attached: evolution_wiki_semantic_manipulation.jpg (774x210, 35K)

it's the dismal science

Alfred Nobel didn't include economics in his original list. It was added posthumously by the (((lawyers))) in charge of managing his trust.

If astrology is science

>If astrology is science

there is a good reason why EVERY high end politician has a personal astrologist

One was discovered before the other. This proves nothing.
>levers aren't part of Newtonian mechanics because Archimedes came before Newton

>>levers aren't part of Newtonian mechanics because Archimedes came before Newton

but you arent dumb enough to say that Archimed probed gravity so why are you so dishonest to preted that genetics *proves* evolution?

Attached: evolution catch 22.jpg (872x1024, 122K)

Why can horses and donkey produce offspirng, lions and tigers can produce offspring, but lions and horses can't?

It depends. Econometrics, for example, is a non-experimental science which is basically a branch of statistics and, to some extent, theoretical physics. In its purest form, it is stem, thus a science. Financial theory has been turning into a branch of physics since the seminal work of Ito and Black-Scholes. The newest frontiers in economics are parasitising theoretical computer science, combinatorics and statistical mechanics.

In less than 10 years econ/finance will become pure STEM, detaching themselves fully from business theory, commercial law and corporate finance.

As for now, economics is not full-on stem. It will be soon.

I never said it proved evolution. I said it's the best explanation we have.
Prove to me we aren't all living in Plato's cave watching the shadows go by, instead of observing the real world. (PROTIP: you can't)
I am gonna believe in evolution until there is a better explanation. Just like I am going to believe the ball will not land on the 0 in my game of roulette. Of course I can't prove it will not land on 0, but all things considered, it seems like the most reasonable belief by far.
Newton didn't prove gravity by the way, he just formulated a model that describes it pretty well.
Drop something and you will see proof of gravity.

No.

You can't be a science yet being incapable of predicting stuff more than 50% of the time even post-priori.

>Equilibrium
ahahahaha do you guys still believe this? im not even a economist and i know this is bollocks

A Jewish one, yes

Woke economics undergrad here. As in every place in academia, its models are too "simplified". For example, they look into demographics change and are able to tell we cannot mantain our current welfare state; however: 1. They never question the existence of the welfare state, or at least the parts of it we will have big problems with (security system, healthcare) or at least propose alternative models; 2. They never question the validity of the "let's just import some immigrants lmao" claim (this model assumes every migrant is a productive worker, and that their children will be too); 3. Nearly every single economics model assumes every human being to be literally equal, which is why it is inconceivable to them that putting Nigerians and Germans in the same place might not work out so well.
In short: they get lost in oversimplified models of reality from their comfort of their office. When the models are confronted with reality, surprise surprise, it fails.

Yes, but if you read Hayek you know it probably shouldn't be.

>predicting stuff more than 50% of the time even post-priori

correct. Evolution is even worse.

>I never said it proved evolution. I said it's the best explanation we have.

this means absolutly nothing, its a circular theory, inform yourself about "falsifiability criterium"

No it’s just an opinion

It’s the same as social and gender sciences

I know what that is nigger.
Find a fossil of a rabbit from the cambrian era and you will have falsified evolution.

>t. BS Economics
Hey, no need to put yourself down, all Economics is BS.

>Find a fossil of a rabbit from the cambrian era and you will have falsified evolution.

no you wouldnt you dumbass, you havent though it trough. One species fossil in specific time can easily be written away as an outlier and would say nothing about the most frequent species of the time - theory would still stand since it impossible to falsify it in any way.

As a economics graduate i can tell it is sience but university is a shitty donkey ass dump that will pump your head with losts of old and outdated theories and pure bullshit. Most gradues can't fucking iterpret current economic occurrences because their heads were pumped with useless shit like history and basicly dogma that you must follow or some cretin profesor od doctor become upset because he spent last 15 years of his life on subject.
Thats why you don't go to study economics and go finance instead. If you are realy into economics just study for yourself, read market research and get some knowlage about other subjects like politics, geopolitics and general world - idustry knowlage. Economics at its own is useless when not paired with some other discipline.

A mammal from the cambrian would not be written off as an outlier, certainly not if it was a rabbit.
YOU haven't thought this through, mammal from the cambrian would be very different from a 400 million year old scorpion or some old shark fossil.

>mammal from the cambrian would be very different from a 400 million year old scorpion or some old shark fossil.

which fits perfectly with evolutionary theory in which only few adapted species continue their lines.

It would also mean no change occurs in these animals even though their environment changed drastically. That part wouldn't fit.

I was woke undergrad to. When ever you try to talk about social safety nets and the need to get rid of things like the fed they go into voodoo mode and try to say your crazy. I wrote a ten page paper on how the fed caused the 2009 collapse and my teacher wrote a full page critic about how although my research was thorough my conclusion didn’t meet with reality.

Is everyone in economics academia a filthy fucking Keynesian?

yes that is usually the case, a lot of marxist economic professors and not enough of the other opinion

Economics consists of guidelines masquerading as rules and value judgements impersonating facts.

Attached: 4chan in the Fuhrerbunker.jpg (988x688, 191K)

It shouldn't be... the predictive power is so low.

In terms of something like Chemical equilibrium where the net activity is an established settled mean under some parameterization. I'm not an economist, just a chemist but I would imagine modelling what people's priorities are by their willingness to buy certain goods over others. Better would be to use the elasticity of demand with respect to price*. If prices are low for a product that has a high inelasticity of demand with respect to price I suppose this would be a good measure of equilibrium in the market between competing firms if you used very many different goods and services.

I'm not an expert on economics though

*An product that has a high inelasticity of demand with respect to price will have the same level of demand even when prices go up. Examples include gasoline.

>It would also mean no change occurs in these animals even though their environment changed drastically.

nope.

no principle in evolution says, one mutation can happen only once in time, they might have died a entirely and same mutation comes back later then it fits the envirnoment.

It fits perfectly, everything does. Unfalsifiable.