Perhaps one of the greatest achievements of Western Civilization over all others is the systemic body of scientific knowledge that has been collected over the past few centuries. Yet what kind of knowledge can be sufficiently called scientific? Certainly most would not venture to call astrology a science. I am indeed treading upon familiar problems within the Philosophy of Science, that of demarcation…
What makes a discipline scientific? Is it the methodology, the questions asked or is it the results? Does a science require a sufficient degree of mathematics? Does a field require a sufficient degree of explanatory power to make it scientific? Predictive power, or maybe reach a reasonable level of verification. What level of empirical work should the field pursue in order to cross the threshold required for science? How much control should the researcher have over the environment? Lastly, should the questions of the discipline be falsifiable? (Can any empirical question ever been sufficiently falsified?) It is because of these questions that I have come to question deeply the ‘scientific’ status of economics and to a lesser degree astronomy. (Although I have more to say about economics than astronomy)
I will go ahead and address each field separately.
Economics
The majority of economists go at great lengths in order to inform repeatedly of the scientific nature of their work. Every economics textbooks from the standard entry level Principles, through the intermediate level and graduate level starts chapter 1 with the declaration of the scientific status of economics. But why? Gregory Mankiw, a very influential Harvard Economist, says that it is because economists
“…use the data that history provides. Consider an astronomer studying the creation of galaxies or an evolutionary biologist studying the development of species. These disciplines, like economics, are primarily observational rather than experimental, but they are clearly scientific.” [1]
That is merely hoping that the audience will accept astronomy as a science and in so do liken the methodology of astronomy acceptable and similar to economics. However, this audience member calls into question the scientific status of astronomy as well, what now?
Most economists fall back upon Karl Popper’s notion of a science as a field in which its propositions are falsifiable. Most economists also believe that their work is empirical, that is describing something going on in the world. Some economists, such as those of the Austrian School shun empirical work for case studies. These Austrian reject the use of mathematics in the field and instead rely on pure reason. Yet when those economists are using pure reason to describe what is going on with prices and wages, inflation and unemployment, are they not talking about facts in the world? If they shun empirical work, then what is economics to be, metaphysics? This is an interesting question, perhaps for another post.
Returning to the previous inquiry, are the propositions of economics falsifiable? Certainly, the laws of Chemistry are falsifiable for there the researcher can control the environment and isolate the particular variable responsible for the causation in question. Can economics and other observational sciences say the same? I do not think so. At this point economists play apologetics and philosophers begin a quibble about the ontology of evidence and observation. Economists are quick to point out that theirs is a field of dynamic processes that are stochastic and thus they must rely on statistical and not deterministic models. Philosophers begin questioning observation and bring into the argument of quantum uncertainty and the effect of the observer on the experiment, thereby questioning the notion of control within the experiment. I do not find this convincing at all.
Without a reasonable, or rather at least sufficient, level of control over the environment the researcher encounters issues of verification of theory. Every phenomena encountered has an infinite number of explanations attributable to it. That is why Chemistry and Physics, when I say physics I mean everything but theoretical physics which is perhaps closer to metaphysics than empirical work, seek to control the experimental environment. They are experimental sciences rather than observational, those fields can influence the variables relevant to the causation at work. Without an experiment holding some important factors constant, how can the researcher adequately construct a theory that identifies the variable responsible for the causation in question? The observational sciences must then compensation for this by means of extra assumptions that makes the work further removed from empirical merit. At this point, the economist will falls back upon statistical inference and the background claim of ceterus paribus while the philosopher calls into question the assumptions assumed when controlling variables. The philosopher is perhaps also apt to remind me of the observation effect that is the observer influencing the results of the experiment by merely observing the experiment. To the former I merely point out the removed from reality nature of ceterus paribus. Changes in one economic factor always change other economic factors. Ceterus paribus is a fantasy, a removed idealization, much like perfect competition. Responding to the latter, the laws and effects of quantum reality are really a non-sequitor for our dryer-sized goods phenomenological experience.
So then, is economics a science? Well, sort of?
Price Theory, microeconomics, is I think the closest that we get to a science within economics. Microeconomics deals with individual actors, not the aggregate figures of macroeconomics. Price theory makes predictions about the choices that rational agents make when confronted with limited resources and unlimited wants (again some assumptions, but I venture to guess these fair assumptions) For the most part price theory makes good predictions, reliable predictions. There are of course instances where standard price theory falters. A sub-branch of microeconomics called Behavioral Economics is currently investigating those difficulties. The sub-field beings economics back in touch with empirical psychology in order to investigate the decision-making processes of economic agents. Microeconomics makes good predictions based upon a reliable methodology that yields results greater than that of pure chance reasoning.
Is the same true for macroeconomics? Is macroeconomics a science? No. The past 50 years of macroeconomic policy failure makes this type of economics not scientific. The sheer level of aggregation based upon individual human actions makes even statistical inference from observation unreliable. This coupled with the fact that the researcher cannot control the environment makes macroeconomics very unscientific. If there ever was a case for the uselessness of ceterus paribus, the prima facie example is macroeconomics.
Astronomy
What about astronomy, is it a science? Maybe, first let us consider the claims of Astronomy. First, that the universe is 14 billion years old, that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that the number of stars in the universe is roughly the same number as grains of sand on the Earth. These and other claims of what perhaps is hubris are substantiated by mainly observation and reliance of assuming the validity of physics. Astronomy assumes that the laws of physics on Earth are uniform throughout the entire universe, what a claim! Astronomy makes some of the greatest existential claims, that the universe is the sum of all matter while claiming at the same time that the universe is expanding…but into what? Is there a sign at the edge of the universe that states ‘Universe Ends Here.’ The methodology of astronomy relies heavily upon mathematics and the results of chemistry as justification for astronomical claims. Yet my issue with astronomy is the lack of empirical results relative to the claims made. Where is the empirical work to show the existence of black holes, of neutron stars, pulsars, and other galaxies? These are for all intensive purposes theoretical constructs with backing only from other theoretical assumptions from physics, chemistry and mathematics. We have no way to ostensibly point at the phenomena and measure it; Astronomy mainly bases its claims from the telescopic observation. The number of assumptions that astronomy makes are far too many given the poverty of empirical underpinning.
Definitions
Normally a good philosopher, I am not a philosopher, gives definitions at the outset of his paper. However, science is a notoriously tricky endeavor to define! I am not sure as to what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a field to be truly a science. Perhaps the following are some useful heuristics:
- That the discipline make good predictions.
- That the discipline employs a reliable methodology.
- That the discipline displays sufficient explanatory power.
- That the discipline controls the environment to a sufficient and reasonable degree.
- That the discipline has several active research programs.
Does this mean then that science is more like a continuum rather than a sharp break-off point?
Perhaps, but even to include astrology and phrenology on that continuum appears to me a front to the spirit of science. Have I diminished the value of economics or astronomy by taking the word science away from them? No, I do not fancy that at all. Philosophy is not a science by any means, but does that take away from the value of philosophy, I think not. (That said, I think a naturalized epistemology is best for philosophy, let’s drop the philosophical methodology) Perhaps given more empirical import to the said fields will I acknowledge those fields as truly capital S sciences.
*Oh, I posted the comic because I find it quite amusing.*
**I changed the original picture because this one is funnier**
[1] http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/is-economics-science.html
Great (and very interesting) post! I have a few quibbles and comments.
First, science is not a product of Western Civilization. I won’t argue that much of the history of science is Western, but there have been extremely important contributions from and interactions with the thought of the East from the Greeks onward. (And though we claim the Greeks as part of the West, this is not an unproblematic historical claim, as Greek society was closely intertwined with that of North Africa and indeed all of the Mediterranean, and the Greeks would find much more in common with the people living in what is now modern day Turkey than the inhabitants of England or Germany at the time.) Many important mathematical developments came from India (zero as a number, perhaps even algebra and maybe even like calculus from the Kerala school), and China pioneered extremely important technical developments well before anyone in the West, such as gunpowder, the printing press, the compass, paper-making. Very little is gained by calling science a Western tradition, I think.
Second, the problem of demarcation is very very complicated. And even things we would never classify today as sciences had dramatic, important effects throughout the history of science–such as astrology, magic, and various artisan’s trades. So, for instance, much medical knowledge and practice started in the natural magic tradition, which sought to use various minerals and plants and animals for human ends. The sciences we all know and love today came from things that were probably not sciences, or perhaps we should call them proto-sciences (terminology is tough!). So even if we don’t wish to dignify economics as a science, this does not necessarily limit its importance–and despite you feeling affronted by astrology being called a science, this makes no difference in the fact that astrology is part of the history of science, that is, elements of astronomical theory and practice were essential to the development of what we now call physics, astronomy, etc. (So, for instance, the development of various mathematical techniques for understanding the processions of the heavens were developed because of astrology, and were spurred by astrological beliefs about the universe; see: Kepler.) So I think you must consider that, if science is a continuum, and if you take the history of science at all seriously, you are going to get things like astrology and natural magic at one end and things like high energy physics at the other end.
Third, one question I always have in demarcation debates, is: so what? Who cares exactly? You yourself say that you haven’t diminished the value of economics or astronomy. Do you wish to show what these disciplines lack in order for them to develop into true sciences? If so, to really have get their attention, you would need to a lot more work to show their inferences aren’t as good as they think they are. Or do are you making an argument that some fields of endeavor cannot become sciences because of their subject matter? (I note that philosophers have a terrible history in making these predictions.)
This brings me to the fourth point, your direct criticisms of economics and astronomy. I detect two veins: one empirical, the other metaphysical. I shall deal mostly with the astronomical case, but I think a defense can be mounted for economics as well (especially if you take statistical inference seriously, and realize that statistical inference is a feature of every experiment in every field, from high energy physics to chemistry. I think that statistical inference is, in fact, properly thought of as experimental, though it is not as reliable as experiments more usually conceptualized…) As for the metaphysical criticisms, you say that the laws of the universe are assumed to be constant everywhere in space. But all sciences make an assumption like this, so physics must assume that the laws of the universe are the same across time. (I furthermore assume you are not making a blanket argument against induction a la Hume, for no science can withstand this critic, at least on philosophical grounds.) Further you seem to imply (though maybe I am misreading you) that the inferences of astronomy are somehow the weaker for having to rely upon chemistry and physics. But this makes no sense whatsoever! I take it you would consider these sciences as sciences, and therefore it should be eminently reasonable, and indeed, necessary and correct to base our inferences and theories in other sciences on the basis of knowledge gained from chemistry and physics. (Indeed, your claim is somewhat strange if only because astronomy is almost always thought of as a branch of physics…) If you are arguing against the unity of knowledge, this undermines physics and other disciplines you want to term sciences, just as well as it does for astronomy. Astronomy is able to use these other sciences in order to make very fine grained predictions about what they would observe under certain conditions, so, for instance, if one were to observe a neutron star, it should, on the basis of physical theory, emit certain very characteristic radio frequencies that we can detect. We detect them and then infer that they exist. Indeed, this seems like a straightforward experiment.
As for the empirical argument, you question the results of astronomy are not as well substantiated by empirical evidence. I think quite the opposite, and that we have lots of great evidence for many astronomical claims: telescopic evidence is extensive, and is based on different sorts of principles (different EM wavelengths). And, based on our physical and chemical theories, we can use EM radiation to determine the construction of things like stars. When you say that astronomy bases its conclusions on mostly telescopic findings, you underestimate what a sophisticated, complicated, and highly empirical endeavor this is. What exactly is your argument that these inferences are less epistemically respectable (less scientific), other than that they are observational? Your main worry on this empirical front is that astronomy and economics are not sufficiently experimental. But you haven’t given me any reason to think that this is an epistemic trump card: why should this be the sine qua non of science? Why cannot we grade our epistemic warrant so that some practices do not convey as much as others, but are still superior than a priori reflection (other than mathematics) or religious based speculation? I rather think that we have a better claim to knowledge of beliefs about, say, the chemical make up of the sun than we do first person beliefs about our memories and the reasons we perform some actions.
Finally, astronomy and economics both meet most of your heuristics (not in every instance, and this does nothing to guarantee their claims are true of course). so astronomy makes good predictions, has a reliable methodology, has sufficient explanatory power, and has several active research programs. It only fails on the ability to manipulate the environment. And, if one broadens one’s ideas of manipulation, we can think of using historical and observational data and statistical inference as a kind of manipulation.
To end, I don’t mean to defend any particular economic or astronomical theory, or even to argue that the methods and values of these disciplines are optimal or even that great. But I do worry that your argument is against a bit of a straw man characterization of these activities. As philosophers, it behooves us to really know the details of scientific practices and the history of science when we construct a point for demarcation. And, my feeling is that the majority of philosophers of science (since at least post-Kuhn) don’t worry as much about demarcation as they used to, since the historical details are so complicated and messy, and current scientific practice has blossomed in so many thousands of ways that it becomes difficult for the philosopher to come up with definitions that won’t be exploded by counterexample.
Ok sorry to write so much, but your post really got me thinking!
Benny,
Excellent post! Your post really got me thinking some more. So, onward
Western Civilization provided a platform for science to progress. Institutions like the Royal Society resolved, for the most part, difficult issues of due credit. This was the key difference, I think, from other civilizations that may have stumbled upon scientific knowledge, but did not do so in a systemic manner. Only the West created the mechanisms necessary for science to flourish as a fruitful endeavor.
In addition, I would say that Science started in the 17th century. When you bring up natural magic and other mysticism as part of the history of science, I think you conflate the history of science with the entire history of humanity. Look, Alchemy was important to the proto-development of chemistry, but it was no venture into science. The fields you mention were not developed under a systemic and organized manner but rather fits and starts.
Yea, the ‘so what’ issue, as you can see I tried to hedge my bets. The issue then is what can be legitimately called science. Certainly, I would have to do quite a bit more work, but given the nature of this blog and other factors, I just did not. I might turn this into a paper later on…
Yes, I think that astronomy is weaker than chemistry or physics because of its reliance upon those fields. Look, we observe a star and because of the color, we use findings from chemistry, mass spectrometers, to infer what elements compose that star. How is astronomy not just piggybacking off the empirical success of chemistry? Without empirical import from physics or chemistry, astronomy becomes much too theoretical. The field, much like a parasite that does not contribute to the host, feeds off the success of other fields.
I think that mere observational inference is not enough because without controlling at least some reasonable number of variables the theory behind the explanation lacks justified explanatory power. Without a control you have to deal with many assumptions that otherwise would have been held at bay.
‘I rather think that we have a better claim to knowledge of beliefs about, say, the chemical make up of the sun than we do first person beliefs about our memories and the reasons we perform some actions.’
Agreed, but once again that is astronomy capitalizing upon the success of chemistry.
I think economics, and I was mainly attacking macroeconomics, fails at making good predictions (recession for the past years has eluded all macroeconomic theories), utterly fails at controlling the environment and has questionable explanatory power.
Regarding astronomy, I do not think it has sufficient explanatory power on its own and clearly has no control over the environment. I think those are damning enough to take away the word science.
Hi Edgar. Loved it, it’s a very nicely crafted piece of work. Later I’ll send you some texts about neoclassical macroeconomics, in which microfoundations are the very core of the entire model. They can get overly sophisticated (from a mathematical point of view) but the simplest models assume a representative agent who maximizes an intertemporal utility function depending on leisure and consumption having as a restriction the equality between the present value of all consumptions and the present value of all incomes across time. Income in each time period is the output of a production function depending on capital purchased in the previous period and the hours individuals are willing to work given wages which are treated as parameters (therefore, we have a trade-off, the individuals in the economy can devote their entire time allocation to leisure but then they would produce no goods and have no consumption). The equilibrium results are quite predictive in a long-run free market context: the long-run equality of the marginal productivity of capital and real interest rates, the long-run equality of wages and marginal productivity of labor, and finally, the perfect inelasticity of the labor supply curve at all times. Solving for all of these conditions provides predictions for the stream of GDP’s, investment spendings and indebtedness in the economy over all time periods depending on parameters. These models are also pretty “libertarian”, lol. Any government intervention via fiscal policy makes individuals worse off (as defined by the utility function) even if GDP is increased, and monetary interventions have no real effects at all, just inflation.
I will tell you what science is. First what it isn’t:
Science isn’t empirical, methodological, predictive or explanatory: these descriptions describe only the normal way in which we go about “getting things done”, and apply as much to Astrology as to Newtonian mechanics.
“Science” is the actual sound or word that is chanted or flag-waved by a public who are expressing a bellicose, technical chauvinism directed against other nations or marginal social movements.
I think the author of this article needs to rethink his uncharitable approach to astronomy. I am no astronomer but I can safely say that he took the popular, ill-informed view that astronomy consists of only looking through telescopes, solving an equation, and naming planets after one’s self.
Astronomy is not “piggy-backing” on the success of chemistry. To say that would imply that biology, physics, and any derivative(s) of the two are “piggy-backing”. Eventually, one would end up with only chemistry, as the Science. Maybe even social sciences, like psychology and economics (ding ding) would also cease to exist, as humans are just extensions of chemistry. Philosophy certainly wouldn’t exist, being just an extension of our chemical minds. Right?
You’ve completely ignored most of astronomy and attacked one aspect of it (the Universe is 14 billion years old) and the as well as stating it expresses “hubris” (a bit ironic coming from a philosophical blog, eh?). You claim that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of black holes. This is false. Negative-light and infrared telescopes have shown us patches of different colors (denoting different wavelengths) that indicate the existence of black holes.
By this vein (a lack of empirical evidence) we should also assume that atoms don’t exist. I mean, sure, Rutherford scattered some alpha particles by shooting them at gold foil, but does that mean electrons exist? There’s no proof in this paradigm.
Astronomy satisfies all of the criteria you mentioned at the closing of your article, except for the control of the environment. That will come in time, when technology advances to the point where extraterrestrial endeavors are not horrendously impractical. It is unfair for one to criticise a field of study for not controlling its variable(s) when the technological limitations of our time make such impossible.
It also feels like Astronomy was just tacked on at the end to try to increase the scope of this article. For several long paragraphs you attack economics (to which I have no comment) but then you sequester off one little part of your essay and go “Oh, by the way, astronomy isn’t a science” very half-heartedly.
@John Jones
That is quite the conspiracy theory.
@Noah
I will try to address you block by block.
I am not quite sure what the popular view is.
Sounds like you read the piece; I do not have a qualm giving up the scientific status of most of psychology. To say that the said fields would cease to exist is not near anything I said. They would still be relevant, just would not be under the header of science.
If you are no astronomer, then how can you tell me I have ignored most of astronomy? No, there is no direct empirical evidence for black holes. They are indeed theoretical constructs created in order to make sense of current troubling empirical data.
Sure, electrons are a theoretical construct. However, they are well supported by indirect experimental empirical data. Can the same be said for black holes?
I cannot control how you feel. As for your conspiracy theory, in all fairness I said at the opening of the blog post “(Although I have more to say about economics than astronomy)” Whether it was half-heartened or not, well, this is a blog format. I do not know your standards of rigor, they may be very high.
Edgar,
Your post is not without merit, but, as I said earlier, your analysis is too simplistic and largely uninformed. I won’t here go into detail (if you want to discuss this tomorrow, I will be more than happy to do so), but you may want to revise your view of astronomy when you have learned a bit more about the various methods astronomers use to investigate astronomical phenomena.
A good place to start may be with Hale Bradt’s “Astronomy Methods: A Physical Approach to Astronomical
Observations;” I have linked you to the work here:
http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/lyndsay/TEACHING/NLPII/052136440Xws.pdf
In short, be careful to avoid arguments from ignorance.
@Aaron,
Thanks! I’ll be sure to get Bradt’s book this weekend.
Have you ever taken an astronomy course at a university? I dare you to do so. You will never again doubt that it is a science- one of the most difficult yet brilliant forms of science there is. Saying Astronomy is not a science is practically saying that Physics is not a science- as they work together hand in hand.
I couldn’t disagree more with stephanie.
I loved astronomy, I loved the universe, physics, stars, galaxies, nebulae– the works! I was passionate and extremely interested in astronomy, so I went to a prestigious research institution, taking my first class in astronomy. I love science, but astronomy is not science.
I took my book and flew through the chapters. The first few were based on Earth (gravity, revolutions, time) which were boring due to my excitement of the mysteries of the universe. At least these parts were heavily scientific though! Finally, the chapters on scientific measure, evidence, and….estimates?
Chapter after chapter, I began to lose my vigor as I found scientific evidence rapidly evolving into heavy estimation, eventual theory, and finally blind assumption. With every chapter I began to lose my dream of becoming an astronomer. Every page I turned made me feel more sick, wondering why this is considered a science credit.
When I closed that 800+ page school book, I closed my mind to astronomy entirely. What a joke. I love science, I love the scientific method, I love evidence mixed with theory and all the glories of experimentation.
Yet all I was taught is that astronomy is based upon an estimation of an estimation of an estimation of mathematics with a range of millions. A single unit in either direction of the center would cause a trickle so heavy in units that IMO, it is impossible to even accurately estimate any further distance. I honestly don’t really remember all that I learned due to my disappointment with the “science”; I only remember how ridiculous the measure of distance is.
While I agree with the both commenter “It is not fair to say astronomy is not a science because we lack the technology right now.” but just because it isn’t fair, doesn’t mean it is logical to call it a science. The same could be said of religion, and you know how internet-psuedo-scientists feel about that, especially if someone were to try and call it science. Sure we can’t measure the ACTUAL distance from the Earth to the Sun, so it isn’t fair, but we don’t call something science simply because “it’s not fair”.
http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/lyndsay/TEACHING/NLPII/052136440Xws.pdf