2006-12-12 19:21:04 · 5 answers · asked by bettysdad 5 in Social Science ➔ Economics
Economics is listed as a "Social Science" for precisely the reason you specify. Yes, it really is a science, in that it approaches the study of economic behavior from the standpoint of testable hypotheses. But you're quite correct, human behavior is difficult to quantify, and that's why none of the "soft" social sciences will ever be able to achieve the level of knowledge-building possible in the "hard" sciences of physics and chemistry.
2006-12-12 19:27:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Science just means that a subject is studied with science,
ie. using the scientific method in a qualitative and logical
way. Economics is about human behavior and evolution
is about life behavior. They are both sciences, just not as
solid as physics ... but then again physics these days is
pretty weird too.
2006-12-12 19:29:33 · answer #2 · answered by themountainviewguy 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Economics is neither a science nor an art. It not only studies the human behaviour but something more than that like money, market and manymore things.
2006-12-12 19:31:37 · answer #3 · answered by Prince 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I do not know why economists went wrong. It is the wrong definition of economics that has led to the confusion. If one defines economics as a study of nature, composition, properties, laws and classification of wealth, economics becomes a mirror image of chemistry and becomes a material science. I do not know what relation is there between wealth and behavior. Wealth is one that can not be created nor can be destroyed but can be changed from one form to another. This Law of Conservation of Wealth is the sum and substance of Double Entry Bookkeeping. Wealth always moves from higher concentration to lower concentration and mind you, human behavior has no say. There are no exceptions to these Godmade Laws-Law of Conservation and Law of Equilibrium. Economists studied only application of wealth and hence termed economics as a social science and they never bothered to study wealth in the manner chemists studied matter(Chemistry is defined as study of nature, composition, laws, properties and classification of matter) Ther is no mention of a single general law of wealth and general property of wealth in any book of economics. Economists stated wealthas one that has value in exchange and value in use. Are loss and goowill that do not have value in exchange forms of wealth? If not why are they measured in units of wealth? What are the units of non-wealth? Economics went on wrong lines and it is time to bring it on track.
2006-12-12 22:35:25 · answer #4 · answered by bvgopinath2001 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Ask Betty, she knows best
2006-12-12 19:24:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋