In the comment section Xenophon raises this point of economics as a science (he asserts it isn't).
Why do people think it isn't a science? I've never understood the rationale. It clearly makes use of the scientific method. Some people talk about "relationships aren't constant between variables", but (1.) that depends on our ability to observe all relevant factors and conditions, which is harder in economics than, say, physics, and (2.) that certainly doesn't disqualify other sciences. Others are concerned about the fact that empirical economics isn't experimental. Again (1.) yes, there is experimental empirical economics, (2.) since when has non-experimental empiricism been a disqualifier for being a science - lot's of sciences are non-experimental?
It's not that this is even a tough question - none of the counter-arguments even come close to making sense. It's just this cultural sense that if you're studying human beings you can't be objective or scientific. I suppose that's the source of the antipathy - I don't know.
For those of you out there who don't think it is a science - why not? I never understood this meme.
John Nash’s Contribution to Game Theory
54 minutes ago