What's the measure?

The fact that it doesn't make predictions any more reliably than astrology.

>The fact that it doesn't make predictions any more reliably than astrology.

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.

Were it reduced to "predictions". It isn't. And people take for granted a lot of popular concepts borne of the study as though it was always known. E.g. the relationship between interest rates & exchange rates, supply and demand, etc.

Any "science" that can't reliably make reliably make predictions isn't a science. That's the litmus test.

You've just eliminated all social sciences, by your metric of "reliably".

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

> You've just eliminated all social sciences

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.

reproducibility has improved over time as well - https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jel.20171350

Absolutely.

> edit: your take-away from this should be that you're mis-defining science.

No thanks.

Volcanologists cannot exactly predict when a volcano will erupt. Seismologists cannot exactly predict when an earthquake will happen. Both can only offer uncertain probabilities. But these are definitely both sciences.

They don't have to predict everything, especially things that aren't predictable.

What kind of precision of prediction is required? Economics predict some things. For example if you print exceedingly a lot moneys, inflation will happen.

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)

Economists cannot predict exactly when market crashes will occur. Is volcanology not a real science because volcanologists cannot predict the moment a volcano will erupt?

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.

Can you point me to any good quantitative research on astrology? Steelman style treatment, preferably. I haven’t actually looked into astrology with much seriousness. I worry that I might be like one of those people who dismiss economics because of envy or some other weird psychological mechanism. It sounds like you might have some information to share?

That's about as accurate as saying Medicine doesn't make any more reliable predictions than astrology

That's about as accurate as saying "nuh-uh."