Well, I have first class degree in economics to be fair. I got the highest score across the university. I didn't just take one class and make my mind up. But I agree that doesn't make me an expert in the field. I also agree behavioral economics is a better direction. However, I'm just saying many strands of it need to use evidence more. A lot of models were kinda cute but also pretty silly. Game theory is a bit of a kafuffle -- Ariel Rubenstein agrees. I didn't see any predictions or studying of real-world data in my whole time studying it. The least we can agree on is that there should be way more of a focus on that for university level.

What sort of university did you go to where they don't do econometrics or macroeconomics, or international trade, or... all things where you can not open a textbook without being confronted with real life data?

The large majority of articles in top journals feature both mathematical theory and statistical&causal inference on real data.

The number one ranked one in the world for economics, actually.

> I didn't see any predictions or studying of real-world data in my whole time studying it

Econometrics is a major part of modern economics and attempts to do just that

It depends on the university that you have gone to, mine was very clear on the assumptions made and we were always critical about the content and its implications. I took several philosophy of economics classes throughout my degree as well. I wish you had a better introduction to the field though, and agree that universities should better educate their undergrads on the real-world aspects of the models at hand.

>Here we go, another HN comment that's awfully quick to dismiss the history of economic methodology and economics as science because they took one undergraduate class in Neoclassical Microeconomics 101.

HN comment? There are lots of books by respected authors written on the subject.

Just because the field exists and gets grants and gets to dictate policies and so on doesn't mean its scientific. Anything scientific in economics is just the math part, which are orthogonal to economic behavior and markets.

>* Economics has a lot more to offer than supply-demand curves, and it has been evolving greatly in many different directions and sub-fields like behavioural economics (especially living its golden age right now).*

The main things it has to offer is salaries for economists and favorable policy suggestions to politicians.

"Anything scientific in economics is just the math part, which are orthogonal to economic behavior and markets."

You're just proving my point here, this is outright dismissive of all forms of experimentation that goes on in many fields of economics. Do not blame the study for your lack of deeper understanding of it; it has more to offer than just salaried academics and macroeconomic policycrafting.

>You're just proving my point here, this is outright dismissive of all forms of experimentation that goes on in many fields of economics.

Mock-experimentation has been going on since forever in all kind of pseudo-sciences of the "soft" variety.

Even Freud did clinical "experiments".

Here we go, another HN comment that is quick to insult and dismiss someone else in order to feel smug. If you took as much time to read their comment as you took to insult them, you'd know that they majored in economics, they didn't just take 1 class.

I have an undergraduate degree in economics and a master's degree in finance, I cannot believe someone can go through a whole degree without understanding what economics as a science entails... Regardless, see OP's response and my reply to that.