Quoting Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Richard Fiero wrote:
>
> > James A. Donald wrote:
> > > . . .
> > >You are implying that libertarian analysis is unscientific and not
> > >academically respectable. But much of it, most famously that by
> David
> > >Friedman, is as hard core as anyone would wish, and on certain
> topics, it
> > >is a lot more hard core than most universities would prefer.
> >
> > Oh, what science is that? Economics is not a science.
What about econometrics? It seems to belong in the same conceptual category as
mathematics, statistics, operations research, etc. I dont think econometricians
would generally appreciate being called softies...
I think any economic theory worth its salt requires good data obtained by some
kind of scientific methodology. Some economic theories are more scientific than
others, it all depends on the approach.
Kind of reminds me of this nuclear physicist I knew who heaped scorn on
economics as 'soft' every chance he got. But then, he also had reservations
about including the life sciences (like biology) as 'hard science' i.e, 'real'
science. And heaven help the person who got him started on psychology and
sociology. I guess some people are just more hard core than others!
~Faustine.
****
'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and
reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
