Question

Explain economics as a real science.

Answer 1

Explanation:

so your answer is

please mark as brainliest

Everyone recognizes that physics is a science. Everyone also recognizes economics–a “social science”– is somehow not quite the same as physics in its ability to be science-like. But what is a science and how is economics different? At first glance, a science is a way of thinking that emphasizes putting forward basic hypotheses and then doing controlled experiments that are set up to distinguish( please mark as brainliest) in stark relief whether each hypothesis is right or wrong. Clearly economists cannot usually do controlled experiments in a laboratory. Economists often are stuck with using historical or cross-country evidence to tease out what might merely suggest a result. Political viewpoints and the everyday language used in economics make unbiased statements or interpretations of results, or the understanding of ideas, imprecise and easily misinterpreted. Economics is a science in some ways but not others.

At second glance, though, even the most fundamental scientific aspects of physics are more complicated than the ideal. Real life physics experiments can’t always be set up to test the key hypotheses. Experimental results in physics are never 100% conclusive and are subject to dispute even centuries after the fact. The ideal of creating a physics hypothesis before looking at the evidence is often more of an art than depicted in physics textbooks.

In what ways is economics like an idealized science? unlike an idealized science? Does mathematical modeling make economics closer to being a science than, say, psychology? How can economists keep their own biases in check–and should they? Are there some ideas about which all economists agree? Do disagreements suggest that economics is an exciting, viable academic discipline or a perpetually unresolvable dispute?