19

Welcome to the demarcation problem of science. What is this thing called science? In lower levels of education, one is often given the impression that 'science', whatever that may be, exists as a monolithic entity. There is no sufficiency and necessity definition of what science is. It's better to say 'sciences' or 'scientific' when speculating as to this ...


8

What is Science? The Popperian view of science is that a claim is "scientific" if it can be falsified. Science cannot prove that a hypothesis is true, only that it is manifestly false. If economics can make falsifiable claims, then I think it is justified to say such claims are "scientific", at least on some level (the degree of repeatability is certainly ...


5

It can. Ramsey put it nicely in his "last papers" written around 1929 under the influence of Peirce's pragmatism (quoted from Marion, Wittgenstein, Ramsey and British Pragmatism): "We want our beliefs to be consistent not only with one another but also with the facts: nor is it even clear that consistency is always advantageous; it may well be better to ...


5

I might know that the sun is more than 100,000 miles from the earth, and the statement 'The sun is more than 100,000 miles from the earth' is true. It is not itself knowledge, however. Knowledge is a state of the knower; a statement is not a state of anything. I am not foreclosing on the nature of a knower; a knower might be a person, an individual mind, ...


3

I fear, there is a misunderstanding about the meaning of "scientific". An experiment is one method in a lot different methods as a scientific approach. (And there are a lot experiments in economics like in game theory.) Even a repeatable experiment is no guaranteed proof, that a theory is true. There might be edge cases in an experimental setting, which ...


3

Wikipedia says Natural science is concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation. It can be divided into two main branches: life science (or biological science) and physical science. Social science is concerned with society and the relationships among ...


3

Economics is closely allied with political science, which is actually one part science and one part philosophy. Or, to be more precise, economics and political science can both be divided into science, philosophy and ideology, or propaganda. Of course, you can always make a distinction between "economic science" and "economic theory," but if you took a ...


3

EDIT: it may be worthwhile for those interested in answering this question to familiarize themselves with the OP's earlier posts throughout the stackexchange site - e.g. here (now deleted), here, or here - under this and related usernames. I did not check the username ahead of time, or I would not have answered; that said, I've decided to leave this answer ...


3

You wrote, ... I made the argument that economics is not science, because it cannot undertake repeatable experiments. I'd like to take issue with the view that the ability to undertake repeatable experiments is either necessary or sufficient (or both?) for a discipline to qualify as a science. First off, if your view were tenable, then astronomy could ...


3

Personally speaking, I would probably use nomological, since at least the word isn't a neologism (it's got a history, and is enough in the ballpark that people will understand what you mean). There isn't a particular word for what you're talking about. In the philosophy of science, people generally generally analyze theoretical structures in terms of the '...


3

One word answer, like metatheory? It might just be science. From Blackwell's Companion on the Philosophy of Science: Some decades ago, Fred Suppe...remarked that "it is only a slight exaggeration to claim that a philosophy of science is little more than analysis of theories and their roles in the scientific enterprise" (p. 515) If there's a single ...


2

Presuppositions of the Question First, it is important to realize that when using the phrase "information stored in one's mind", one is essentially invoking the computer metaphor of the mind. In this day where digital computers are ubiquitous and very familiar tools, it's easy to forget that models to the mind existed that aren't based on an analogy to a ...


2

When Kant tells us that in an analytic statement the predicate is contained in the subject, he intends a quite different sense of 'subject' from what you have in mind. 'A triangle has three sides and three internal angles' is analytic because having three sides and three internal angles - possessing these predicates - is inherent in the subject of the ...


2

How? For starters, the characterization of the sciences you offer sounds like those of a true believer instead of a scientist or scientifically inclined theologian, say the Pope, who embraces science and evolution. But, I can offer a rational response, which you are welcome to decline and downvote in your efforts to proselytize. Given your references to your ...


1

A distinction between a statement which describes the essential properties of an object and one which describes only contingent properties is the key point. For instance, 'A triangle is a a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles', states all the definitional properties of a triangle - hence in this specific sense it captures everything (...


1

The skeptic's claim is not "We are certain that we could be brains in vats" - rather, it's "We are not certain that we are not brains in vats." This claim is fundamentally different. To defeat it, one would have to provide an airtight proof that the brains-in-vats scenario is impossible, and it's hard to see how to even get started here. In fact, this is ...


1

To me, the lack of being able to predict (at least on a national level) tells me that economics cannot be a science (at least at that level). It might suggest things about consumer behavior but it can't predict basic things that most people things that economists should know. Ask an economist to predict ANYTHING that will happen 1 year out on a national ...


1

Humanities is art not science, but based on science. In humanities, which economics is the study of humans trading, there are many theories and no facts. Experience, exposure, practise, and training allows you to choose the most useful theory to the specific circumstances. That is the art. The goal is to integrate theory and self because as a human you ...


1

Welcome, Aleesha If economics is a science, we have I think to concede that it is does nor have the explanatory scope or depth of (say) particle physics. But this sort of damaging comparison, though common, is not what is needed. Biology is also a science which lacks the explanatory scope or depth of particle physics yet its status as science is secure. ...


1

" Persue good" can be translated as " What is to be persued is the good". But what is " the good"? it is by definition " what is to be persued". So the original statement means " What is to be persued is what is to be persued". An analytic statement indeed, since the predicate is contained in the subject ( in fact, it is identical to the subject, which ...


1

So, this seems to be a question of philosophy of language and epistemology since it is predicated about notions of the analytic-synthetic divide, questions regarding syntax and semantics, and is examining propositions in light of their linguistic modality. To wit: If imperatives don't have subjects, then how can we describe them as "analytically ...


1

A corker of a question ! Then to begin an answer ... Knowledge without words (1) - the math. example Nineteenth-century German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss used to joke that he could calculate before he could talk. Maybe it was no joke. Recent work casts doubt on the notion that language underlies mathematical ability and perhaps other ...


1

... and the dictionary being just a set of self-references would be completely useless. You've just noticed that knowledge (not only regarding the term) is based on a set of tautologies. Kant already suggested that. In such case we can take it to the extreme: you are asking a useless question, since any answer would be based on facts you already know. But ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible