Skip to main content
added 3 characters in body
Source Link
1muflon1
  • 58.5k
  • 4
  • 55
  • 114

Discussion of all views on demarcation of science would be beyond scope of Economics.SE so I will focus on the mainstream Popperian view of demarcation of science (but as mentioned Economics would clear virtually all established views for more info on that have look at Ross Philosophy of Economics, or Hausman Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology).

  • "labor supply elasticity with respect to income tax is -0.2" is science/scientific statement because the statement could be disproven by evidence which would show that labor supply elasticity with respect to income tax is not -0.2.

  • "if you want to reduce CO2 emissions by $x$ metric tons there ought to be $y\%$ carbon tax" - is a scientific statement because we could find by empirical observation that $y%$ carbon tax does not yield reduction of emissions by $x$ metric tons.

  • "Take from the rich and give to the poor" - is not a science. No amount of empirical observation can disprove statement: "Take from the rich and give to the poor". You can make infinite number of experiments, have god like omniscience and be aware of all facts, but nothing can show that statement is false. That statements is unfalsiable. It is expression of value/ideology/political view but not science.

  • "Take from none, and allow the Invisible Hand to decide the winners and losers," is again not science. No amount of empirical observation can falsify that statement. Even if there would be crystal clear evidence that laisseslaissez faire improves all aspects of life or that it leads to poverty or ruin cannot disprove that statement.

  • "we should increase taxes by 10%" - is not science as nothing again can refute that statement. No matter of empirical observation on disadvantages of taxation or on other hand benefit of public spending funded by taxation can ever disprove that statement.

  • "people should not smoke" - again expression of value not scientific statement

  • "smoking causes cancer" - this would be in the domain of science (although not economics in this case but I wanted to throw one more down to earth example).

Discussion all views on demarcation of science would be beyond scope of Economics.SE so I will focus on the mainstream Popperian view of demarcation of science (but as mentioned Economics would clear virtually all established views for more info on that have look at Ross Philosophy of Economics, or Hausman Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology).

  • "labor supply elasticity with respect to income tax is -0.2" is science/scientific statement because the statement could be disproven by evidence which would show that labor supply elasticity with respect to income tax is not -0.2.

  • "if you want to reduce CO2 emissions by $x$ metric tons there ought to be $y\%$ carbon tax" - is a scientific statement because we could find by empirical observation that $y%$ carbon tax does not yield reduction of emissions by $x$ metric tons.

  • "Take from the rich and give to the poor" - is not a science. No amount of empirical observation can disprove statement: "Take from the rich and give to the poor". You can make infinite number of experiments, have god like omniscience and be aware of all facts, but nothing can show that statement is false. That statements is unfalsiable. It is expression of value/ideology/political view but not science.

  • "Take from none, and allow the Invisible Hand to decide the winners and losers," is again not science. No amount of empirical observation can falsify that statement. Even if there would be crystal clear evidence that laisses faire improves all aspects of life or that it leads to poverty or ruin cannot disprove that statement.

  • "we should increase taxes by 10%" - is not science as nothing again can refute that statement. No matter of empirical observation on disadvantages of taxation or on other hand benefit of public spending funded by taxation can ever disprove that statement.

  • "people should not smoke" - again expression of value not scientific statement

  • "smoking causes cancer" - this would be in the domain of science (although not economics in this case but I wanted to throw one more down to earth example).

Discussion of all views on demarcation of science would be beyond scope of Economics.SE so I will focus on the mainstream Popperian view of demarcation of science (but as mentioned Economics would clear virtually all established views for more info on that have look at Ross Philosophy of Economics, or Hausman Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology).

  • "labor supply elasticity with respect to income tax is -0.2" is science/scientific statement because the statement could be disproven by evidence which would show that labor supply elasticity with respect to income tax is not -0.2.

  • "if you want to reduce CO2 emissions by $x$ metric tons there ought to be $y\%$ carbon tax" - is a scientific statement because we could find by empirical observation that $y%$ carbon tax does not yield reduction of emissions by $x$ metric tons.

  • "Take from the rich and give to the poor" - is not a science. No amount of empirical observation can disprove statement: "Take from the rich and give to the poor". You can make infinite number of experiments, have god like omniscience and be aware of all facts, but nothing can show that statement is false. That statements is unfalsiable. It is expression of value/ideology/political view but not science.

  • "Take from none, and allow the Invisible Hand to decide the winners and losers," is again not science. No amount of empirical observation can falsify that statement. Even if there would be crystal clear evidence that laissez faire improves all aspects of life or that it leads to poverty or ruin cannot disprove that statement.

  • "we should increase taxes by 10%" - is not science as nothing again can refute that statement. No matter of empirical observation on disadvantages of taxation or on other hand benefit of public spending funded by taxation can ever disprove that statement.

  • "people should not smoke" - again expression of value not scientific statement

  • "smoking causes cancer" - this would be in the domain of science (although not economics in this case but I wanted to throw one more down to earth example).

added 1 character in body
Source Link
1muflon1
  • 58.5k
  • 4
  • 55
  • 114
  • "labor supply elasticity with respect to income tax is -0.2" is scienceis science/scientific statement because the statement could be disproven by evidence which would show that labor supply elasticity with respect to income tax is not -0.2.

  • "if you want to reduce CO2 emissions by $x$ metric tons there ought to be $y\%$ carbon tax" - is a scientific statementis a scientific statement because we could find by empirical observation that $y%$ carbon tax does not yield reduction of emissions by $x$ metric tons.

  • "Take from the rich and give to the poor" - is not a science. No amount of empirical observation can disprove statement: "Take from the rich and give to the poor". You can make infinite number of experiments, have god like omniscience and be aware of all facts, but nothing can show that statement is false. That statements is unfalsiable. It is expression of value/ideology/political view but not science.

  • "Take from none, and allow the Invisible Hand to decide the winners and losers," is again not science. No amount of empirical observation can falsify that statement. Even if there would be crystal clear evidence that laisses faire improves all aspects of life or that it leads to poverty or ruin cannot disprove that statement.

  • "we should increase taxes by 10%" - is not science as nothing again can refute that statement. No matter of empirical observation on disadvantages of taxation or on other hand benefit of public spending funded by taxation can ever disprove that statement.

  • "people should not smoke" - again expression of value not scientific statement

  • "smoking causes cancer" - this would be in the domain of science (although not economics in this case but I wanted to throw one more down to earth example).

  • "labor supply elasticity with respect to income tax is -0.2" is science because the statement could be disproven by evidence which would show that labor supply elasticity with respect to income tax is not -0.2.

  • "if you want to reduce CO2 emissions by $x$ metric tons there ought to be $y\%$ carbon tax" - is a scientific statement because we could find by empirical observation that $y%$ carbon tax does not yield reduction of emissions by $x$ metric tons.

  • "Take from the rich and give to the poor" - is not a science. No amount of empirical observation can disprove statement: "Take from the rich and give to the poor". You can make infinite number of experiments, have god like omniscience and be aware of all facts, but nothing can show that statement is false. That statements is unfalsiable. It is expression of value/ideology/political view but not science.

  • "Take from none, and allow the Invisible Hand to decide the winners and losers," is again not science. No amount of empirical observation can falsify that statement. Even if there would be crystal clear evidence that laisses faire improves all aspects of life or that it leads to poverty or ruin cannot disprove that statement.

  • "people should not smoke" - again expression of value not scientific statement

  • "smoking causes cancer" - this would be in the domain of science (although not economics in this case but I wanted to throw one more down to earth example).

  • "labor supply elasticity with respect to income tax is -0.2" is science/scientific statement because the statement could be disproven by evidence which would show that labor supply elasticity with respect to income tax is not -0.2.

  • "if you want to reduce CO2 emissions by $x$ metric tons there ought to be $y\%$ carbon tax" - is a scientific statement because we could find by empirical observation that $y%$ carbon tax does not yield reduction of emissions by $x$ metric tons.

  • "Take from the rich and give to the poor" - is not a science. No amount of empirical observation can disprove statement: "Take from the rich and give to the poor". You can make infinite number of experiments, have god like omniscience and be aware of all facts, but nothing can show that statement is false. That statements is unfalsiable. It is expression of value/ideology/political view but not science.

  • "Take from none, and allow the Invisible Hand to decide the winners and losers," is again not science. No amount of empirical observation can falsify that statement. Even if there would be crystal clear evidence that laisses faire improves all aspects of life or that it leads to poverty or ruin cannot disprove that statement.

  • "we should increase taxes by 10%" - is not science as nothing again can refute that statement. No matter of empirical observation on disadvantages of taxation or on other hand benefit of public spending funded by taxation can ever disprove that statement.

  • "people should not smoke" - again expression of value not scientific statement

  • "smoking causes cancer" - this would be in the domain of science (although not economics in this case but I wanted to throw one more down to earth example).

added 1 character in body
Source Link
1muflon1
  • 58.5k
  • 4
  • 55
  • 114

Based on the above Minmax-Maxmin criterion one can derive the optimal tax schedule that should be applied to income of each individual. That optimal tax schedule derivation can be checked and it can be tested by experimentation in real life and so on.

Economics is a science under widely used demarcation criteria of science and it is quite distinct from politics.

Politicians will routinely create conflicts in society even about established facts/science (e.g. climate, age of Earth, Evolution etc ). ThisThese conflicts are at their core often unscientific, they are either conflict of values or if not conflict of values than just opposition to what other side of the aisle is saying just for sake of opposition since without disagreement there cannot be any politics. These conflicts will virtually never have anything to do with science whatsoever, but without doubt many unscrupulous politicians will often (mis)cite science in order to appear more authoritative and fool people into thinking that is relevant for their squabbles about value judgements. In reality it is not, value judgements cannot be refuted one can only show they are consistent with one or other system of ethics and one might try to persuade opponent to tweak their ethical system but there is no science that can falsify or provide credence to any ethical proposition whatsoever.

Based on the above Min-Max criterion one can derive the optimal tax schedule that should be applied to income of each individual. That optimal tax schedule derivation can be checked and it can be tested by experimentation in real life and so on.

Economics is a science and it is quite distinct from politics.

Politicians will routinely create conflicts in society even about established facts/science (e.g. climate, age of Earth, Evolution etc ). This conflicts are at their core often unscientific, they are either conflict of values or if not conflict of values than just opposition to what other side of the aisle is saying just for sake of opposition since without disagreement cannot be any politics. These conflicts will virtually never have anything to do with science whatsoever, but without doubt many unscrupulous politicians will often (mis)cite science in order to appear more authoritative and fool people into thinking that is relevant for their squabbles about value judgements. In reality it is not, value judgements cannot be refuted one can only show they are consistent with one or other system of ethics and one might try to persuade opponent to tweak their ethical system but there is no science that can falsify or provide credence to any ethical proposition whatsoever.

Based on the above max-min criterion one can derive the optimal tax schedule that should be applied to income of each individual. That optimal tax schedule derivation can be checked and it can be tested by experimentation in real life and so on.

Economics is a science under widely used demarcation criteria of science and it is quite distinct from politics.

Politicians will routinely create conflicts in society even about established facts/science (e.g. climate, age of Earth, Evolution etc ). These conflicts are at their core often unscientific, they are either conflict of values or if not conflict of values than just opposition to what other side of the aisle is saying just for sake of opposition since without disagreement there cannot be any politics. These conflicts will virtually never have anything to do with science whatsoever, but without doubt many unscrupulous politicians will often (mis)cite science in order to appear more authoritative and fool people into thinking that is relevant for their squabbles about value judgements. In reality it is not, value judgements cannot be refuted one can only show they are consistent with one or other system of ethics and one might try to persuade opponent to tweak their ethical system but there is no science that can falsify or provide credence to any ethical proposition whatsoever.

Source Link
1muflon1
  • 58.5k
  • 4
  • 55
  • 114
Loading