Can Economics be guided by science?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether economics can be guided by scientific principles to address human needs and problems. It explores the relationship between market forces, government intervention, and the role of science in shaping economic policy, touching on theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that while market forces have historically driven efficiency and growth, they are not infallible and can lead to negative long-term consequences, such as environmental issues.
  • There is a suggestion that government, potentially guided by scientific expertise, should play a role in regulating markets to ensure sustainable outcomes.
  • Others point out the difficulty in reaching a consensus on what constitutes human needs and problems, noting that social sciences may not provide precise answers to these questions.
  • Some participants emphasize the importance of education in STEM to help voters and politicians make informed decisions based on technical merits rather than emotional or superficial considerations.
  • A clarification is sought regarding whether the discussion is about guiding science or using science to guide economic and political policy.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the relationship between science and modern luxuries, suggesting that scientific progress is essential for societal advancement.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the role of science in economics and governance. There is no consensus on how to define human needs or the best approach to integrating scientific guidance into economic policy.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of defining human needs and the challenges of integrating social sciences with STEM fields. The discussion reflects a range of perspectives on the ethical implications of guiding science and policy.

Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
In regards to quotes. I remember some famous physicist asked if he would be interested in the field of economics.

His reply was something to the matter that there were too many variables for anything meaningful to be said about, in the field.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim hardy
  • #33
The basic problem I see with the premise is that economics is inextricably linked to things like politics, philosophy, etc. which can't be quantified. Science is about what can be observed and empirically recorded. Take for example the current tax reform legislation (not offering an opinion on it either way just using it as an example). The primary criticism is that it's unfair to low- and middle-income earners and disproportionately favors the wealthy. How do you scientifically determine "fair" and "favor"? You can present numerical arguments for both sides. The closest you could come to a scientific model would be to base it on efficiency, which would probably end up looking like basic Darwinism ("survival of the fittest"). The moment you begin taking things like civil rights into account you've crossed over from science to philosophy. Not that that's a bad thing; our embracing of metaphysics like philosophy is what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 222 ·
8
Replies
222
Views
35K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
14K