Here's me critique of ecconomics according to the criterion I just put
forth:
1) It assumes that the objects under study act according to laws of
nature, not according to volition
2) It is empirically based
3) It is experimentally based.
4) It makes broad predictions from a few basic principals
5) It makes precise predictions
6) It is reductionistic
7) It is synthetic
8) It is falsifiable by additional experiments
9) It survives as a special case of the newer theory
Let us look at economics in the light of these rules.
1) Definitely not. Economics describes the actions of human beings/human
societies. Most people assume humans have free will, including JDG.
2) Partially. Much/most of economics is based on empirical observations.
But, look at John's example on the list. It involves him asking
introspective questions of people. I would submit that this is part of the
process of defining the basics of economics, where introspection does not
play the same role in determining how bodies fall.
3) I'd say mostly no here. While a few people such a Greenspan can perform
an occasional experiment, very few variables are controlled. Further,
unlike the observation of planetary motion, its not tied into another part
of the theory where experiments can be done.
4) This is mostly true, but in a qualitative way instead of a quantitative
way. Decreased supply does raise prices, and decreased demand lowers them.
But, as Erik has pointed out, its hard for even the best folks to predict
future oil or natural gas prices.
5) This is rarely if ever true
6) Only in the vaguest sense. There is not a theory of human behavior that
underlies economics in the same sense that a theory of the attraction of
point like masses underlies the theory of the orbit of the planets.
7) Not well done if done at all. Maybe someone can point to a general
economic theory that has been obtained by the merging of two other two
special case theories. If so, it is not with the predictive power of electr
omagnetism, for example.
8) Not very well. A good example of this is the argument over the factors
involved in the Great Depression. There is a school of thought that argues
that it is purely the result of bad monetary policy and protectionism.
There is another that argues that it is the result of the inherent
instability of a market as free as the market in the US was in the '20s and
the difficulty involved with the concentration of wealth. After all these
years, one can only cite data as leaning against one or the other, not
falsifying either.
9) If this has happened, it has not been in the wonderful way that it
happens in physics, e.g. how classical E&M is formally derivable from QED.
So, lets summarize. We have 1=no, 2=partially, 3=mostly no, 4=mostly true,
5=rarely if ever, 6=only in the vaguest sense, 7=not well done if done at
all, 8=not very well, and 9=doubtful.
Dan M.
