I would say it disqualifies it as a natural/hard science.

No one has ever called economics a Natural science.

Why are you making thread asking questions you could literally look up in a dictionary lmao

Fr, this is so goofy.

Just say you dont like economics.

People used to do this to psychology and sociology all the time.

Its goofy bro

Might as well s*** on every social science at the same time.

I want to know if economics, as an applied field, is backed up by science or just by ideology

I’ve seen this been debated all the time

I do not dislike economics, im genuinely trying to understand it

Applied field? Its an applied science fam

This is the worst back and forth I've ever seen on a ktt thread

You’re the one who keeps arguing over semantics lol

Yes, an applied field of knowledge, an applied science... is it backed up by nature, or is it just an ideology? I’m asking in good faith.

Im not arguing semantics you clown.

You are trying to avoid the fact that economics is quite literally described as an social science

Its not just an applied field or applied science. It is a science that seeks to study human behavior in relation to scarcity

Humans arent as predictable as literal natural phenomenona

This is the issue with psychological studies and other studies in the social sciences.

Anyone who has taken these classes would understand that

Mainstream economists are the high priests at the altar of capitalism making vague Nostradamus tier predictions to keep up a thin veneer of legitimacy for a system past its expiration date

I got a crystal for your ass too.

Well smart people call it science dont they?

I believe that psychology can arrive to a point in which it can predict human behavior very accurately, backed up by neurophysics, for instance.

Do you think economics can arrive to a point in which it can predict human behavior in relation to scarcity very accurately? And if so, on what natural sciences would it be backed up?

You predict that x will happen. It doesnt mean x will happen

There is a lot of stuff you cannot predict now in society because human behavior is not always predictable. There are even things you cant predict currently in regards to biology now.

Also economics quite literally functions in relation with mathematics, psychology, sociology, and logic. And what youre preposing would essentially apply to literally most social sciences???? What you proposed was some Elon Musk tier answer that would explain all behavioral sciences.

Also why does it need to be backed up by a natural science?

That is not a qualifier for something to be considered a science

Really? I thought applied sciences had to be backed up by natural sciences, what would they be applying if they weren’t? Medicine, for instance, apply the knowledge of natural sciences such as chemistry in order to come up with solutions to diseases.

Let’s take the economic notion that humans always make rational decisions. Is that backed up by psychology, or something else?

Why does a science assume that people are rational in order to simplify calculations???

Why do some translational kinetics problems assume that air resistance and drag are nil??

Why does the ideal gas law assume certain conditions?

Economics is a social science, not an applied science. You are using terminology inaccurately.

No one else describes economics as an applied science but you. Most of academia calls it a social science.

You can literally just google this.

Applied economics is a thing. Even you said it was an applied science in this very page.

But anyway, it’s not semantics what I’m arguing.

I agree that economics make assumptions to simplify calculations, i gave that example because I thought that maybe you would take that assumption as a fact as I’ve seen many people doing.

I guess what I’m trying to understand is that if by studying economics one could come up with the “right” system, or if we should just accept that any economic system is backed up by the ideologies of said system (capitalism vs communism for instance) and not by natural science.

I said it was applied science by accident because you* literally claimed it was an applied field. It's your poor messaging.

And its not semantics because Applied Science and Social Science don't mean the same thing.

Medicine is an applied science because its the application of biology (et al) in order to solve a practical problem (poor health outcomes).

Economics is straight up not an applied science. It is deadass looking to study human behavior. It is by definition a social science.

Going I said "X"? Yeah because sometimes when you respond to people using erroneous terms, you may get lost in the bs they're saying unless you check yourself.

Hence why I use the correct terminology in my next post

You are looking at Science as if its solely about reaching a conclusion when its about the process.

Economics is a social science because it attempts to understand an aspect of the social world using specific methods (Models for one that consist of measurements and data).

Economics is considered both, a social science and an applied science, because it can be applied to come up with solutions, simple as that. One doesn’t deny the other. Just look up “applied economics”.

But once again, all i want to know is if there is a “right” way to interpret economics without having to rely on an ideology.

Biology is applied to come up with solutions. It is not an applied science

Physics is applied to come up with solutions. It is not an applied science.

An applied science; or per se medicine is the application of biology to solve x problem.

Economics is not both a social and applied science. That doesn't make any f***ing sense.

Capitalism isn't an ideology. It's an economic system. Point blank, if you think Capitalism is an ideology, its because you frequent weirdo online s***.

Do you think feudalism is an ideology too?

Alright. Economics is not an applied science. Applied Economics isn’t a thing, any info about Applied Economics I may find is false. I’ll use other terms, like Politics, when I speak on Economic theory being used to find solutions in order to not derail the discussion into a semantic argument. You win.

Now. Is communism an ideology or an economic system?

ITs not a semantic argument


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
You are literally using the wrong terminology.

Politics is its own branch of the social sciences

Communism is not the opposite mirror image of Capitalism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
You guys make your lives so damn difficult

People on KTT gotta stop making threads and just go on Wikipedia, the largest content aggregator known to man.

You niggas swear to god you're going to find some random fountain of youth on Kendrick Lamar To The.

And if you don't trust Wikipedia. Log off, cuz I don't see how ur trusting random G&G posters, China shills, and niggas making threads about Durkio in regards to academic issues.