Well, I do apologize for trying to engage with you without a degree in economics to be able to engage at the level you are demanding. I’ll go out and get that PhD in economics right away and come right back to give you the engagement you deserve. Seriously, I read what you posted and I gave the response I was capable of. No need to get snippy because I’m not an economist and don’t want to just talk out my ass like I know what I’m talking about.
IF you are interested in further discussion with me then I have a few clarifications for you about some things you apparently misunderstood in what I said. If not then I suggest you find a forum on economics to ask economists what their ideas are as they would know far better than me.
Economics is obviously based on sound principle, but I don’t know that it’s “a science” because, while it makes predictions, failure of the prediction to come to fruition does not discredit economics, it informs economics. That’s a fundamental variation from normal scientific protocol. If you try to use that in your research of psychic powers it would be a HUGE violation of scientific principle. But in economics it is accepted, even unchallenged. That scientists aren’t fighting to keep economics out of schools tells me that in this particular case they don’t have a problem with it. So why is that? Well, in a science you don’t fault the mathematical formula for unpredictability when you have a huge random in the middle of it causing the unpredictability, like human nature. That the formula cannot account for unpredictable variables is not a mark against the formula. However, like feng shui, a dozen economists are likely to give you a dozen different answers to a question, suggesting they’re not all using the same math. But when you think about that, economics classes don’t teach random math, they teach the same things. So they’re likely just weighting their unknown variables differently. And we go back and forth like this for a while, on many different aspects of economics, get bored of doing that and finally conclude it is a “quasi-science”. It is based on theories, it is testable, it does make predictions. However, those predictions aren’t always accurate and even a failed test does not discredit it. In some ways it looks like a science, in some way s it does not, making it difficult to quantify, hence my unacceptable answer, the best one I am capable of giving.