One of many economic theories claims, that any kind of government intervention in competitive
markets prevents the market from reaching its equilibrium and thus causes a smaller economic
surplus and an inefficient market (McDowell et al., 2006). But is it really true? Do
politicians consider this assumption when making decisions? Actually, they often do not. The
point is, that nobody really knows the “truth” about economic theories, because economists
often disagree in their theories and predict different outcomes, as Klamer (2008) describes.
This fact leads many people to claim that (business) economics is not a real science. This paper
will debate this statement and find an answer to the problem if economics is a science or
not.
Table of Contents
1. Exordium
2. Definition of science
3. Modern and hard-nosed view of the science of economics
4. Postmodern view of the science of economics
5. Peroratio
Objectives & Core Themes
The primary objective of this paper is to examine whether economics, specifically business economics, qualifies as a genuine science by evaluating it through both traditional empirical frameworks and postmodern perspectives.
- The distinction between natural sciences and social sciences
- The critique of economics regarding predictability and empirical consistency
- Thomas Kuhn’s theory on the evolution of scientific knowledge
- Economics conceptualized as a "conversation" and subjective discourse
- The role of barriers to entry and logical consistency in economic theory
Excerpt from the Book
4. Postmodern view of the science of economics
The postmodern position refuses the above-mentioned common description of science and tries to see scientific truth as a construction that people make, as “opinion within the context of a conversation” (Klamer, 2008). Richard Rorty [1931-2007] first introduced this theory. The term conversation does not only refer to the talking amongst people but also to citations of essays or invitations to conferences, as Klamer (2007) describes. This postmodern position does not follow the hard-nosed way of thinking but it would also be wrong to call it lazy-dazy, which means that science is a matter of belief and subjective. It is wrong because not any contribution to the economic conversation is scientific and not any theory mentioned will be practicable in the real world. Furthermore, not everybody can join the economic conversation; there are some barriers of entry. “It requires a range of skills, a mastery of econospeak, a diploma or two, a great deal of knowledge (...), and a good dose of self-confidence” (Klamer, 2007, p. 16). Once in the conversation there are a couple of rules to follow, such as that the contribution to it must be meaningful, of interest and truthful, “in the sense of logical consistency” (Klamer, 2007, p. 73). If it is not, one simply gets out of the conversation and one’s theory will not be “heard” by other economists.
So, is economics a science on the basis of the postmodern position? The metaphor of conversation relativizes the problem of bad predictions and persistent disagreements because economists do not search for the “truth” but just try to be in the conversation. As long as they are able to be in the conversation, their theories are meaningful and of interest. Of course, disagreements, bad predictions and a less than optimal scientific quality are still existent, but “the science is not so strange if you see it as a conversation” (Klamer, 2007, p. 177).
Summary of Chapters
1. Exordium: This chapter introduces the ongoing debate regarding the scientific status of economics, highlighting persistent disagreements among economists and the lack of consensus on economic "truths".
2. Definition of science: This chapter provides a general overview of scientific methodology, contrasting the objective search for "truth" in natural sciences with the complexities of studying human behavior in social sciences.
3. Modern and hard-nosed view of the science of economics: This chapter argues that economics fails to meet the strict criteria of modern science, such as empirical interchangeability and high predictability, leading to the conclusion that it is not a science for "hard-nosed" thinkers.
4. Postmodern view of the science of economics: This chapter explores an alternative perspective where economics is defined as a "conversation," suggesting that scientific validity is found through meaningful discourse and logical consistency rather than universal empirical laws.
5. Peroratio: This final chapter synthesizes the arguments, concluding that while economics does not fit traditional "hard-nosed" criteria, it is a valid science when viewed through the lens of postmodern discourse and varying theoretical frameworks.
Keywords
Economics, Science, Philosophy of Science, Hard-nosed view, Postmodernism, Economic conversation, Empirical evidence, Scientific methodology, Social science, Thomas Kuhn, Richard Rorty, Economic theory, Discourse, Logical consistency, Truth.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental nature of this paper?
This paper is a philosophical inquiry into the scientific status of economics, exploring whether it satisfies the criteria required to be classified as a true science.
What are the primary themes addressed?
The core themes include the definition of science, the methodology of empirical versus social sciences, the limitations of economic predictability, and the postmodern conceptualization of science as discourse.
What is the central research question?
The research seeks to determine whether (business) economics can be considered a science in the face of persistent disagreements and the inability to provide indisputable, empirically proven facts.
What scientific methods are analyzed?
The paper examines the "hard-nosed" modern methodology (relying on observation, hypothesis testing, and empirical experiments) alongside the postmodern "conversation" framework.
What does the main body of the paper cover?
The body contrasts the failures of traditional scientific modeling in economics with the more inclusive and relativistic postmodern view that treats economic debate as a structured, subjective conversation.
Which keywords define this academic work?
Key terms include Economics, Philosophy of Science, Modernism, Postmodernism, Discourse, Empirical evidence, and Economic Conversation.
Why does the author argue that economics fails the "hard-nosed" scientific test?
The author argues that economics lacks the reliable, interchangeable empirical results and precise predictive power typically found in natural sciences like physics.
How does the "conversation" model solve the problem of economic disagreement?
By shifting the focus from finding an objective "truth" to being a valid participant in an intellectual dialogue, the conversation model justifies persistent disagreement as a feature of the field rather than a scientific failure.
What are the "barriers to entry" for the economic conversation mentioned in the text?
Barriers include the requirement for specialized skills, "econospeak," extensive knowledge, and the self-confidence needed to engage within the existing academic community.
What is the final conclusion regarding the scientific status of economics?
The author concludes that while economics fails by the standards of traditional, empirical science, it is definitively a science when evaluated through the postmodern lens of theoretical conversation.
- Citar trabajo
- Christoph Butz (Autor), 2008, Is (business) economics a science?, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/178104
