On the contrary, sociology is way more scientific than economics in building probabilistic models of social behaviors. Such models are quantitative and testable.
Economics is opinion based by design.
Regardless of the field, be it economics, cookery or mechanical engineering, you can ask a pool of experts:
- How can I solve problem X? What will happen if I do nothing?
- How confident are you that the solution will be effective or the prediction will be accurate?
The problem X is the input and then you compare predictions and real outputs.
There is abundant literature on the effectiveness of economical models and the ability to make prediction and the outcomes are clear:
- Economists systematically overestimate their ability to make predictions
- There is not even a single economical theory. Economists have different schools of thought that are incompatible with each other (!)
There are countless examples of economists failing to predict the future or having wildly different opinions.
I guess science is a failure then, better give it up.
Ask meteorologists about their models and they will honestly tell you the limitations of such models and the success rate at predicting the weather. They have little incentive to lie.
It will be difficult to find meteorologists with clear "anti snow" or "pro rain" biases.
Same goes for getting a blood check: they are not 100% reliable, yet it's difficult to find a lab with an ideological bias skewing the results.
Then, ask economists and you'll quickly find out that their predictions and advice on economic policies aligns with the school of though they belong to.
Politicians routinely ask for advice from this or that economist depending on what they want to hear.
Economics almost by definition can not make good predictions wanted by the public, because as soon you figure out precise model “a” of the economy, the economy takes the model “a” into account and mutates to model “b”.
This applies to all social science.
> There are countless examples of economists failing to predict the future or having wildly different opinions.
This applies to all social science.
it's not a risk, it's a measurable fact.
yup.
Physics: apply force F to projectile of mass M and know in advance where and when it'll land modulo a tiny error margin.
Economics: raise the interest rates by X%, wait unknown amount of time Y, observe state of the system after time Y, formulate complex theory as to why action led to "cause", go write a paper about it. Get wined and dined by policy makers who see great benefit in your "explanation".
The phenomenon is not new BTW, oracle, druids and shamans have occupied that ecological niche for as long as there has been tribes and leaders needing to justify their actions to the masses.
They just changed their names in the 20th century to sound more respectable.
edit: your take-away from this should be that you're mis-defining science.
edit2: you all forgot that medical and nutritional science has a reproducibility crisis, it's no less "science" for it. Add to the fact, the notion that nothing is reproducible in Economics is false. See for example: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/famous-economics-experime... , https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaf0918
Because they're indeed not sciences.
They call themselves that to attract funding.
Predictive power and reproducibility are defining characteristics of sciences.
Social "sciences" have neither and therefore aren't sciences.
> edit: your take-away from this should be that you're mis-defining science.
No thanks.
At the same time, physicists have problem telling precise location and momentum of the atom (at the same time; precisely).
(footnote: I love physics more than economics, but world is not perfect and sciences are not perfect. Except for math maybe https://xkcd.com/435 . Perfection and usefulness are not the same)
In both cases scientific study can help us determine when the risk is higher or lower, and can tell us definitively when one does occur. But no field that studies stochastic processes like markets or volcanic activity can make 100% certainty predictions years in advance.
These fields are all dealing with probabilities, asking for a yes or no answer is missing the point.