Forsher wrote:This might seem like a pretty random subject to bring up but it's based off this so from my perspective it's kind of a current affair thing. Actually, it's more like a really nasty rabbit hole that has led to 28 more open tabs. The good news is that all you need to do is read this one... at just the 472 pages. Just kidding. All you need to read is a single question: what kind of subject is economics?
In schools and universities, you'll notice that subjects tend to be clustered together into faculties (or, possibly, departments).. and in some countries, degrees. So, for example, you might have a science faculty that teaches biology, physics and chemistry, or a humanities faculty with English, Classical Studies and History, or a Social Studies faculty that has Classical Studies, Media Studies, History, Geography and Social Studies departments. When I ask "what kind of subject is economics" I'm sort of asking which faculty should it be in?
This isn't a straightforward question... obviously you might not know what economics is (certainly, neither the Ministry and the hacks it employs nor most of those submitters in that 472 page PDF appear to have a solid grasp on what subjects are about, not just economics... pick a submission and odds are it's whack) but that's not really what I mean: I'm more talking about how it's hard to define what makes "science" science, for example, and difficult to set parameters around what's economics and what's something someone's calling economics (cf pseudoscience). However, the three basic answers are:
- economics is a science (albeit, a dismal one)
- economics is a social science (what makes something a social science rather than a science, then?)
- economics is a business/commerce discipline (a what?)
However, only the middle one is actually correct.
Whether you see economics as being more "the study of decision making" (cf decision theory and ecology) or "the application of scarcity to human behaviour" (cf human geography as "the application of space to human behaviour", or psychology as "the application of the brain to human behaviour"), the basic thing it is about doesn't change: humans in the human world. Sciences aren't united by methodology (please, tell me more about how palaeontology is able to use the "scientific method"), which means their uniting concern must be subject (i.e. the natural world), which makes sense with the existence of "social sciences". But that then introduces a contrast with "humanities", unless you see humanities as being united by a concern for "the construction of their world by humans"... they're not behavioural, in other words (imagine, if you will, trying to use English as a subject to explain human behaviour). Business/commerce disciplines aren't actually disciplines at all... they're no more academic than plumbing or carpentry: the focus is entirely on how to do things, not explanations of how things work/are.
But that's just me, what say ye, NSG?
I am a Portfolio Manager at a Hedge Fund. Studied and use Economics as part of my work. Here's my take.
Firstly, there are many way to classify majors; science, non-science, art, business, STEM, pseudoscience, magic, witchcraft, jungle etc. For simplicity, let's stick to your categories of just 2: Science/non-science/pseudoscience. Now we must define the 3 in very simple terms.
Firstly, science: Basically, everything must be studied and proven thorugh testing and experiments: Hypothesis testing, data collection, formulation, statistical analysis etc. Results must be objective and clear, the studies must be replicable /peer-reviewed/authorized.
Secondly, non-science: Things here are a bit more subjective, not a lot of numbers invovled, hard to test, hard to prove, hard to replicate studies, hard to reach consensus.
Based on the 2 explanations above, we can see that there is no need for a pseudoscience category, as we can fit everything into just these 2 categories, which makes our job simpler.
1. Science: Will include all your Science, Technolgy, Engineering Mathematics subjects. Will also inlcude Law (eswpecially outside the US), Accounting/Finance and yes, Economics.
Economics does indeed involve a lot of maths, especially at the advanced levels, but that's not why its considered a science. Law does not have any maths but also belongs here. The reason relates back to the earlier defined definition. Economics and Law and the rest here studies that are objective and clear, the studies must be replicable /peer-reviewed/authorized. Most of these subjects are also considered essential for the world to keep functioning. While there are some theories in Econs that are not proven, many have indeed been proven. In physics there are many theories that have not been proven, the point is these theories are all studied in a systematic way.
2. Non-science: Everything else not in number 1. Basically, hard to test, hard to prove, hard to replicate studies, hard to reach consensus. Not considered essential for the world to function.
Hope this helps.
