Economics/Tutorials: Difference between revisions
imported>Nick Gardner No edit summary |
imported>Nick Gardner |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Some footnotes for economists== | ==Some footnotes for economists== | ||
===Economics as a science=== | ===Economics as a science=== | ||
Whether economics is a science is a question that would appear to a layman to economics to be esoteric and semantic, but it is of considerable interest to its professionals. | Whether economics is a science is a question that would appear to a layman to economics to be esoteric and semantic, but it is of considerable interest to its professionals. It was claimed to be a science by [[John Stuart Mill]], <ref>[http://www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/mill/question.pdf John Stuart Mill "On the Definition of Political Economy and the Method of Investigation Proper To It" in ''Unsettled Questions of Political Economy'' Essay 5 p86 Baloch Books Kitchener 2000]</ref> - a claim that was later challenged by [[Lionel Robbins]] <ref>[http://www.mises.org/books/robbinsessay2.pdf Lionel Robbins ''An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science'' Macmillan 1935]</ref> and critically examined by [[Paul Samuelson]] <ref>Paul Samuelson ''Foundations of Economic Analysis'' Harvard University Press 1947</ref>. It has been pointed out that many economic theorems do not satisfy Karl Popper’s criterion that, for a proposition to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable <ref>[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9219121 Karl Popper ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery'' Routledge 1959]</ref>. The economic theory of utility, for example, yields tools that can be used in economic analysis rather than testable propositions. However, such tools can be used in the scientific analysis of economic activity, just as Euclid’s theorems can be used in the scientific analysis of physical phenomena. To the extent that the analysis yields testable propositions, it can nevertheless be considered scientific. But critics have claimed that the propositions of theoretical economics are seldom put to the test, and that even when the are, academic economists are apt to continue to put forward propositions that fail (The survival of the [[Hecksher-Ohlin]] theorem in face of Leontief's Paradox has been cited as an example) | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 02:09, 8 February 2008
Some footnotes for economists
Economics as a science
Whether economics is a science is a question that would appear to a layman to economics to be esoteric and semantic, but it is of considerable interest to its professionals. It was claimed to be a science by John Stuart Mill, [1] - a claim that was later challenged by Lionel Robbins [2] and critically examined by Paul Samuelson [3]. It has been pointed out that many economic theorems do not satisfy Karl Popper’s criterion that, for a proposition to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable [4]. The economic theory of utility, for example, yields tools that can be used in economic analysis rather than testable propositions. However, such tools can be used in the scientific analysis of economic activity, just as Euclid’s theorems can be used in the scientific analysis of physical phenomena. To the extent that the analysis yields testable propositions, it can nevertheless be considered scientific. But critics have claimed that the propositions of theoretical economics are seldom put to the test, and that even when the are, academic economists are apt to continue to put forward propositions that fail (The survival of the Hecksher-Ohlin theorem in face of Leontief's Paradox has been cited as an example)
References
- ↑ John Stuart Mill "On the Definition of Political Economy and the Method of Investigation Proper To It" in Unsettled Questions of Political Economy Essay 5 p86 Baloch Books Kitchener 2000
- ↑ Lionel Robbins An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science Macmillan 1935
- ↑ Paul Samuelson Foundations of Economic Analysis Harvard University Press 1947
- ↑ Karl Popper The Logic of Scientific Discovery Routledge 1959