Calling Economics a science always bothers me, slightly. I think of a science as a tool for making testable predictions (amongst other things, granted). And yet, if you put two economists in a room, you get three opinions.
It's as if you get ready to drop a ball, and ask a panel of physicists for their predictions:
1. The ball will drop. 2. The ball will stay where it is. 3. The ball will float upwards.
And then you drop the ball, and you ask the scientists for their prediction next time. 2 and 3 will be right out of it.
And yet, in Economics, getting it wrong doesn't seem to matter. In fact, you'll find that 2 and 3 weren't actually wrong at all. In a weightless situation, 2 would be spot on. If you were in Australia, 3 would be right (ok, I haven't tested this hypothesis, but common sense confirms it).
What does the Dismal Science predict? Or does it only explain?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2012-05-28 03:43 pm (UTC)It's as if you get ready to drop a ball, and ask a panel of physicists for their predictions:
1. The ball will drop.
2. The ball will stay where it is.
3. The ball will float upwards.
And then you drop the ball, and you ask the scientists for their prediction next time. 2 and 3 will be right out of it.
And yet, in Economics, getting it wrong doesn't seem to matter. In fact, you'll find that 2 and 3 weren't actually wrong at all. In a weightless situation, 2 would be spot on. If you were in Australia, 3 would be right (ok, I haven't tested this hypothesis, but common sense confirms it).
What does the Dismal Science predict? Or does it only explain?