Yet ironically
economics is widely used in our government and applied. Both the Democratic and Republican parties use it, in different ways, to show that they can improve the economy and create jobs, and many other things promised to the voting public.
Yet, you claim, based on this "Philosophy of Science" book, that economics (and sociology) don't qualify as scientific discilines, because, as I understand it from you, when new evidence pops up that disproves something, like the Phillips Curve and the 1970's, economists try to explain it in terms of the original theory. Assuming of course that you are talking about mainstream economists and not non-mainstream economists. I refer to the two mainstream economoists the Classics and the Keynesians. Not the Austrian economists, nor the Institutional economists, nor the Radical economists or any other of the non-mainstream economists that could explain the changes in a brand new way using new theories, oh no, for that would ruin the effect the book is trying to capture. Instead, you chose to find a book that disproves economics, all of its functions, scientific research, theories, and what have you as not being of science.
The reason for such a thing, was that you could not argue with me on the level I learned of economics, and thus you found something that calls it unscientific. To obviously invalidate what I posted.
Rather that try and prove or disprove economics, if you are correct, then all of the politicians in the Democratic and Republican parties are unscientific when they use economic theories to try and help along the economy. Logically, then, we should not vote any of them into office, unless they use a scientific method. So I ask you, what is a scientific alternative to Economics? Perhaps our country is headed in the wrong direction?
Amazing when I did a "The philosophy of science" search on Wikipedia, it matched it up with "Anarchism" as a text article result, facinating!
Yet there was an article match as well:
[link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science|http://en.wikipedia....osophy_of_science]
Sorry that I did not read the book, I am but a poor and disabled college student and Amazon was unreachable for me today.
Apparently I found something interesting "Occam's Razor is often abused and cited where it is inapplicable." I seem to recall someone using that on me before, and after reading the definition, it did not seem to apply to what they said. Not that I fully understand it yet, but what little I do understand seems to tell me that the qouted line is true. Yet let me quote this line " William of Occam (or Ockhegm or several other spellings) suggested that the simplest account which 'explains' the phenomenon is to be preferred. He did not suggest that it would be true, or even more likely to be true, though 'simpler' has very often turned out to be more likely to be right (in hindsight) than 'more complex'." the person using it on me claimed it was true, or at least suggested it. Yet I cannot help but feel that you are using it, and thus also abusing or citing it where it is inapplicable. Thus I can logically conclude that what you have said about the Saudis, using the simpler account, could possible be false or wrong in some way.
In conclusion, I ask you to please cite your facts that support your assumption. They would be most helpful to me understanding your point of view.
