# Is economics an empirical or an "axiomatic-deductive" science? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 23, 2006, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583 "2006-03-23T14:04:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/1 "2006-03-23T14:04:22Z")
In this thread – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=363710](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=363710) – I asked **WillMagic** to come up with proof for his argument (based purely on logic) that a minimum wage always leads to unemployment. To which he/she replied: > [@](#): > > Economics is not an empirical science in the manner of the natural sciences, where by observing and testing real-world phenomena you can come to conclusions. Economics has far too many variables, as you note, for that. As such, economic “proofs,” if you will, cannot come from graphs or studies or tests. Economics is an axiomatic-deductive science, and the proofs come from logic. Is this true? Of course economists (unless they sit on the Federal Reserve Board or something) can’t run controlled experiments in the real world. But neither can meteorologists; that doesn’t mean meteorology is not an empirical science. Meteorologists study the weather, take careful measurements, and eventually can identify causal connections between events with reasonable confidence. **Empirically,** not logically. Don’t economists do the same? ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/2 "2006-03-23T14:08:57Z")
This doesn’t prove anything, but I took a Money and Banking course at the University of Baltimore in the early 90s which was taught by the chairman of the Economics department. Every time someone asked him a question that attempted to relate what we were learning to a real-world situation, he dismissed the question with “That’s an empirical issue”. Drove me crazy. That economist, at least seemed to agree that economics is NOT an empirical science. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/3 "2006-03-23T14:45:01Z")
Complicated question. There are different sorts of economists. Applied economists may rely on data alone (Xavier Sala-i-Martin and his “let’s try a billion regressions” approach) or constrain the empirical side a great deal by theory - make up the numbers as long as the add to zero (computable general equilibrium economics - GTAP is one example). The rest is in between. Econometricians are guided by a mixture of theory and data. Experimental economists are being challenged by field economists. Theorists are something else. My wife always laughs at the line that an economist is someone who sees something working in practice and asks whether it could work in principle. On the minimum wage issue, check out the various things linked to [here](http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/07/minimum_wage.html), particularly the Landsburg piece. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/4 "2006-03-23T15:52:54Z")
As I’m sure Hawthorne will attest, classical Austrian Economics is deductively derived. You can read the process for yourself in Ludwig von Mises’ [**Human Action**](http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/5 "2006-03-23T15:59:43Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > As I’m sure Hawthorne will attest, classical Austrian Economics is deductively derived. IYO, does that make it more credible or less? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/6 "2006-03-23T16:07:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > IYO, does that make it more credible or less? More. Much more. Decidedly more. Enough for me to discard out of hand whatever contradictory theories there might be. Contradictions cannot be true. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/7 "2006-03-23T16:24:56Z")
Ouch. Dogmatic much, Lib? I doubt I’ve EVER been so certain of anything that I would dismiss contradictory concepts in such a way. Me, I’ve liked to treat economics as an empirical science but I too often see that, while it may be so, the level of data required to prove more than some basic and middling concepts empirically sets the user up for disaster. It’s a bit like playing with chaos theory…something you didn’t account for (and can’t effectively measure) can skew results in surprising ways. Toss in the old saw about ‘humans should always be rational decision-makers’ and it only gets worse! Feh. ‘Humans’ and ‘Rational’ are words I doubt can be combined in a sentence with much reliability. Example, with some humor: My mom, an economist herself (health care and health spending is her field), and with many publications, has a pin she wears for conferences, ‘If you lined up all the economists they’d point in different directions.’ That level of disagreement leads me to doubt the ability of economics, at the current level of sophistication, to prove/disprove things empirically. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/8 "2006-03-23T17:03:31Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > Ouch. Dogmatic much, Lib? I doubt I’ve EVER been so certain of anything that I would dismiss contradictory concepts in such a way. No, I don’t think so. Dogmatic means “arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles” (American Heritage). The principles I’m asserting are proved. That’s what deduction does — it _proves_ things. I do not favor the empirical approach to economics because, as you can see from Mises’ and Hayek’s work, empiricism is an unreliable epistemology with respect to economics, in part because of the fact that, by the time you have collected your data, they are obsolete. And by the time you apply what you’ve learned, the principals from whom the data were generated might be of drastically changed status, such as broke or dead. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/9 "2006-03-23T17:26:02Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > More. Much more. Decidedly more. Enough for me to discard out of hand whatever contradictory theories there might be. Contradictions cannot be true. No they can’t, but assumptions (axioms) can be wrong. I can see no reason to not reconsider one’s axioms when their predictions conflict with reality (empirical data). Surely you’re not suggest that, are you? It was hard to tell from your post. As to the OP, I’m not sure one needs to choose one or the other. Economics, as a study of human behavior, has limitations on it in terms of the types of experiments we can run. But that doesn’t mean we have to throw up our hands and realy on purt thought alone to reach conclsusions. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/10 "2006-03-23T17:54:57Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > No they can’t, but assumptions (axioms) can be wrong. That’s why I gave a link to the book. You can see for yourself whether you think the axioms are weak. > [@](#): > > I can see no reason to not reconsider one’s axioms when their predictions conflict with reality (empirical data). Surely you’re not suggest that, are you? It was hard to tell from your post. Okay… first of all, deductive logic doesn’t make predictions, and neither does Austrian economics. In fact, it proves that reliable predictions about economics on certain levels cannot be made. Second, axioms are drawn from reality; that’s why they’re selected as axioms. And finally, it’s the empirical data that conflict with reality because the reality they represent is long gone by the time they are examined. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/11 "2006-03-23T19:06:44Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > That’s why I gave a link to the book. You can see for yourself whether you think the axioms are weak. I read it (long time ago), and I don’t remember thinking the axioms were weak. That’s not to say that one or more might be found to be weak at a later date thru an empirical process (ie, testing their validity against real world data). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/12 "2006-03-23T19:23:49Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > More. Much more. Decidedly more. Enough for me to discard out of hand whatever contradictory theories there might be. Contradictions cannot be true. Because the Austrian school is based on deductive logic? Aristotle used logic to prove a vacuum could not exist. Zeno of Elea used logic to prove an arrow cannot reach its target. St. Anselm used logic to prove God must exist, by definition (the ontological argument: non-existence would be an imperfection, therefore the Perfect Being must exist, Q.E.D.). Just because a chain of reasoning is internally consistent and logical does not mean it has anything to do with the real world. That’s why science is based on **inductive** reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/13 "2006-03-23T19:29:05Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > And finally, it’s the empirical data that conflict with reality because the reality they represent is long gone by the time they are examined. But, that’s as much as to say it’s impossible to derive **any** economic principles that apply to more than one specific moment/location/situation. If you believe that, why even try to form a science of economics? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/14 "2006-03-23T19:45:22Z")
I don’t know where Liberal learned his economics, but I got my degree at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. My professors certainly seemed to believe economics was an empirical science. Had I avoided empiricism in my studies I would have flunked. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/15 "2006-03-23T20:18:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Because the Austrian school is based on deductive logic? Aristotle used logic to prove a vacuum could not exist. Zeno of Elea used logic to prove an arrow cannot reach its target. St. Anselm used logic to prove God must exist, by definition (the ontological argument: non-existence would be an imperfection, therefore the Perfect Being must exist, Q.E.D.). Just because a chain of reasoning is internally consistent and logical does not mean it has anything to do with the real world. Doesn’t mean it’s sound either. No one accepts a logical argument that’s flawed. Not even I. > [@](#): > > That’s why science is based on **inductive** reasoning. Surely, you were aware that fallacies exist in inductive reasoning, and that for proof of anything, it is useless. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/16 "2006-03-23T20:23:34Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, that’s as much as to say it’s impossible to derive **any** economic principles that apply to more than one specific moment/location/situation. I see that giving you the book wasn’t a complete waste of time. > [@](#): > > If you believe that, why even try to form a science of economics? Excuse me? You mean your first premise is that there should exist a science of economics, and then you scurry about finding data for it? That seems rather self-serving, doesn’t it? At any rate, a science of economics on a local scale is very useful. That’s why there is a school of Austrian economics. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/17 "2006-03-23T20:24:51Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I don’t know where Liberal learned his economics, but I got my degree at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. My professors certainly seemed to believe economics was an empirical science. > > Had I avoided empiricism in my studies I would have flunked. Are you saying that none of your professors exposed you at all to the Austrian and Chicago schools? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/18 "2006-03-23T20:30:15Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Surely, you were aware that fallacies exist in inductive reasoning, and that for proof of anything, it is useless. For **absolute** proof of anything, it is useless, as any scientist will tell you. (One can’t say with scientific certainty that apples will not start to fall upwards tomorrow.) But for deriving reliable knowledge about the world, it is the only thing that is useful. And come to think of it , isn’t “axiomatic-deductive science” rather a contradiction in terms? I mean, there’s even controversy over whether **mathematics** qualifies as a science. ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/19 "2006-03-23T20:33:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > For **absolute** proof of anything, it is useless, as any scientist will tell you. (One can’t say with scientific certainty that apples will not start to fall upwards tomorrow.) But for deriving reliable knowledge about the world, it is the only thing that is useful. I’ve said it before, and maybe i’m just anal this way, but there is no such thing as ‘proof’ (proofs sure), only evidence. > [@](#): > > And come to think of it , isn’t “axiomatic-deductive science” rather a contradiction in terms? I mean, there’s even controversy over whether **mathematics** qualifies as a science. Mathematics isn’t a science at all, it is a language (the language of science, sure). ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583/20 "2006-03-23T20:39:06Z")
So what about modern physics? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-economics-an-empirical-or-an-axiomatic-deductive-science/349583.md?page=2)