>So you lack references (without an ideological angle) that dismiss economics as a science -- which I asked after?
That's the best you could deduce from my comment?
For starters, given the main claim I made (that economics is not a science), and considering that whether is true or false is under question, the last thing one could logically ask for, regarding that, would be citations.
For who would make those?
Surely not physicists or mathematicians, etc. (since it's not their job). And surely not economists for it IS their job.
If my claim was true, economists admitting it would be like homeopathists or freudian psychoanalysts saying their fields are non-scientific. It just ain't gonna happen, or it will be marginal at best.
Ever more profoundly though, should we actually evaluate arguments, or only think pre-made thoughts coming to us by way of citations?
Because the latter is not scientific either -- one needs to evaluate citations too. And no, peer review is not infallible in that either (in case one thinks citations are some golden truth they can always accept because they're peer reviewed. In fact a good majority of papers even in hard sciences have been found in meta-studies to be reproducible and others plain wrong (the so-called reproducability crisis).
Assuming it it the same and worse in economics, which is not a hard science, already makes most of my point.
That's the best you could deduce from my comment?
For starters, given the main claim I made (that economics is not a science), and considering that whether is true or false is under question, the last thing one could logically ask for, regarding that, would be citations.
For who would make those?
Surely not physicists or mathematicians, etc. (since it's not their job). And surely not economists for it IS their job.
If my claim was true, economists admitting it would be like homeopathists or freudian psychoanalysts saying their fields are non-scientific. It just ain't gonna happen, or it will be marginal at best.
Ever more profoundly though, should we actually evaluate arguments, or only think pre-made thoughts coming to us by way of citations?
Because the latter is not scientific either -- one needs to evaluate citations too. And no, peer review is not infallible in that either (in case one thinks citations are some golden truth they can always accept because they're peer reviewed. In fact a good majority of papers even in hard sciences have been found in meta-studies to be reproducible and others plain wrong (the so-called reproducability crisis).
Assuming it it the same and worse in economics, which is not a hard science, already makes most of my point.
That said, here are some sources:
https://www.amazon.com/Dismal-Science-Economist-Undermines-C... https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Rules-Rights-Wrongs-Science... https://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Modern-Economics-Science-Ideol... https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Mathematical-Politics-Dimin...