I do not mean to be rude - at all! I sincerely think that economics as it is currently learnted, taught and ptractized is a sort of theology.

If there are mistakes "out there", it is not the model what we are to blame; it is because "you" didn' t understand or interpret well the model. Hence, it is "you" who is to be blamed. - That is what it is currently said: in Europe as well as in Africa, in Latin America or in the Middle and Far East.

I love P. Ormerod' s bbok: "The Death of Economics". As a consequence, economics needs radically be re-thought.

Dear @Sylantyev, Economics, as praticized these days, is neither a natural nor humanitarian science. It is in the same category with gambling.

Dear All,

I think economics cannot be a natural science. Economics study man made situations and rules in man created environment.

Economics is both a positive science as well as a normative science. The former conception is close to it being a natural science. Here we want to know what impacts what in the economy and why. All focus is on causality, which helps develop the analytical power of the learner and to expand the economic concepts to serve the particular needs of a particular economy/country or the globe (in case of IMF and World Bank, for example)

Economics as a normative (humanitarian) science studies the models and approaches that should be adopted so as to realize particular economic and social goals e.g. higher economic growth, poverty alleviation, lower Ginni coefficient, better investment climate, growth with social justice, etc.

To conclude, economics is both.

I agree with Andras. Economics cannot be natural science. It is part of humanitarian science.

Dear Carlos,

I do not feel economics would be a sort of theology for simple people like me. Abedallah may be right: it is a political gambling where imaginary rules are forced on societies and economists try to forecast future events on the base of these rules.

There are perhaps biology-based rules that influence economic decision rules (e.g. survival strategies), which implies that economics can be defined both as natural and humanitarian sciences

Dear András, I like the thing about gambling. And agree, hence. However, that is precisly part of the problem: the feeling about eonomics, we regular people perceive does not fit the reality of economics as it is ruled "from above". It is this latter what I speak about as theology, namely a "perfect untouchable model", an "unquestionable model" that is to be applied following the decisions from the top, period.

The situation in Europe, etc. is conspicuously serious...

This debate is one with great history, thanks Sylantyev for asking it. Since Economics treat human activity, the economic one, we can say that they are a humanitarian science. One more argument for this classification is the fact that the economic policy is closer to philosophy, remeber the debate between socialism and capitalism. But, since Economics are merely an optimization theory, using Lagrangians, Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions, derivatives, topological spaces and other purely mathematical objects, then we must classify them to natural sciences. I think Economists have to answer the question: Are they going to serve humanity (so their science will be a humanitarian) or are they going to convince us that everything is an optimization technique (so their science is a natural one). I remind everyone that in Physics most of the laws are produced by a suitable least action principle for a well defined Lagrangian, just like in every standard Economic modern model.

It is more of natural science, I think. Right from the start, human beings have to identify the natural resources in their environment. However, letting forces of nature do their job would have destructive consequences. Therefore, the economy was needed to provide strategies to avoid this outcomes.

I do not understand economics (even though my wife's major was economics she does not seem to udnerstand economy in my view) but it does not look like a science. It does not have a set of objective laws. We can predict when a remote star will reappear and where but we cannot predict the shares next day for sure.

I would like to mention something regarding: "economics is a natural science".

Economics, as we know it, was born under the shadow (or the light: a you prefer) of classical mechanics and Newtonian physics. Hence its pretentions, scope, and history - to-date.

I firmly believe much has happened since then that makes such a spirit untenable - any longer.

Dear Huajiang,

If economy cannot be described as a scientific approach or research domain because of it's level of unpredictability, the same argument could be used for many aspects dealing with weather or climate fluctuations that are considered as important scientific topics.....

Dear All,

Economy or their components can be used as environmental factors in natural sciences (e.g. impact of economy on environmental change), so depending on the scale of analysis Economy belongs to natural or other sciences (Economy of Chemistry, Economy of Energy, Economy of Physics, Economy of Biology versus Chemistry of Economy, Energy of Economy, Physics of Economy, Biology of Economy, etc....) or not?

It is a social science, where theory and emprical tools "should" be applied to relevant issues that can be considered important for a society as a whole. Unfortunately, it is often understood just as a technical device useful to understand very specific problems, often not so important in terms of welfare.

It is really an interesting question and thanks to all for such wonderful responses. Before I express my own views, let me share with you a couple of views by some great economists like JMK and RS.

John Mynaard Keynes is believed to have once said, "The study of economics does not seem to require any specialized gifts of an unusually high order. Is it not, intellectually regarded, a very easy subject compared with the higher branches of philosophy and pure science? Yet good, or even competent, economists are the rarest of birds. An easy subject, at which very few excel! The paradox finds its explanation, perhaps, in that the master-economist must possess a rare combination of gifts. He must reach a high standard in several different directions and must combine talents not often found together. He must be mathematician, historian, statesman, philosopher—in some degree. He must understand symbols and speak in words. He must contemplate the particular in terms of the general, and touch abstract and concrete in the same flight of thought. He must study the present in the light of the past for the purposes of the future. No part of man's nature or his institutions must lie entirely outside his regard. He must be purposeful and disinterested in a simultaneous mood; as aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near the earth as a politician. "

On the contrary, Robert Solow, one of the notable authorities in the field of neo-classical economics itself, ironically said;

"There is a single universal model of the world. It only needs to be applied. You can drop a modern economist from a time machine – a helicopter, may be, like the one that drops money – at any time -, in any place, along with his or her personal computer, he or she could set up in business without even bothering to ask what time and which place."

Probably what Keynes explained is what any field of science and its practitioners must imbibe. What Solow mentioned is a reflection of how as economists we have deviated from reality.

Humanitarian Science, according to me; FOR the humans, BY the humans, OF the humans! It is a Social Science, for the society of Humans too !!

It is an interesting point of view given in the following article : "Economics is NOT Natural Science!(It is technology of Social Science.)"!!!

http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/resource/onlinetext/Definitions/economicsNOTscience.htm

Dear Ljubomir,

What is the profession of Dick Richardson who claims that Economics is not science?

Cheers again

I think this is a difficult question, as part of economy can be consider as natural science and a large part is humanitarian.

Among other things, utility for instance, which is used extensively in AI and computer science came from economy.

Economy is extremely affected by policy, national and global events. and that what it drags it a way from science to humanitarian.

@ Mario Vincenzo Russo. .... A very interesting qualification raised about what may be called a science..... Existence of a set of basic set of laws (like chemistry and physics). ... But who says economics lacks laws?. .... it probably has more fundamental theorems than any other fields of science. Moreover, many laws or principles that are applicable to material sciences and also applicable to economics.

@Marcel, here is the Dick Richardson's illustrated biography! Dick&Pat!

Cheers!

http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/resource/bio/dick-patRichardson.htm

Dear Ljubomir,

Richard and Pat are very well educated. Humans belong to nature, right?

Humanitarian sciences therefore belong to the natural sciences, right?

Economy is therefore a natural science, right?

Dear Mario Vincenzo Russo, I get your point. But we generally do not treat issues in the way you presented the concept of profit. Profit as a part of the output identity is not directly related to sale of an output alone at a given price but also associated directly with the cost of inputs, exactly in the manner you treat energy. So, sales proceeds (or sales multiplied with price) is exactly equal to the the cost of production (employment multiplied with marginal factor payment) + profit . At a given price, employment and and sales level, profit increases only with relative decline in factor payments. There is no other way to increase profit. Any way, profit is only an element of the identity. I agree that it is a trivial example. By the way, profit is not to be understood in such a simplistic way. Economists differentiate between economic profit and accounting profit. In a representative production function with specific properties, the economic profit becomes zero if all factors are paid as per their marginal efficiency (Euler's Theorem). I know, I am dragging the discussion unnecessarily as there are limiting issues around such discussion.

Coming back to the main point of discussion, although there are different paradigms of looking at various economic issues, everything in economics boils down to the issue of stationary state. The problems faced by an economist are actually nothing but deviations from the stationary state. Deviations are caused by only by shocks (disturbances, errors). Shocks are caused by factors external to the market (or the space where activity under discussion is taking place). You may find little anomaly of this understanding with Newton's First Law of motion.

The point is, why can't we consider a subject a natural science if under controlled situations the subject predicts results with consistency. For that matter, if we ignore the protocols, then even experiments in natural sciences fail to deliver the results. I consider Economics a natural science only as it follows each and every element of natural logic as suggested by @ Marcel M. Lamberchts.

I think it bothis combinatination of

Dear Sylantyev,

"Economics is the science that deals with the way in which people earn their living, and the way they spend their earnings. It does not, of course, pretend to go into the details which are of immediate interest to the individual in conducting his own affairs: it does not understand tailoring like a tailor, or the manufacture of chemicals like a chemist. It is concerned with the public, or social aspects of earning and spending. The older name for the science is 'political economy', and this name has the advantage of bringing out the fact that what it deals with is of interest to the community, and so 'political' in a wide sense of the word; the term 'social' would be better understood nowadays" - RA Lehfeldt, in his introduction to 'Descriptive Economics', Oxford Univ Press, London, 1940.

Lehfeldt further says - "The economist may be likened to an observer on the top of a mountain. He cannot see the details of the fields that are familiar to the farmers who cultivate them, but he obtains a grasp of the broad features and relations of the countryside in a way that is beyond the reach of the individual farmer". (p 8)

As there nothing original that I need to say, I rest my case (blame it on my LLB, please) by calling economics a "Social Science".

Have a great day!!

Just to add a small point: Economics should serve hunanity (ie: to be a social science), but because of the difficulty of mathematics after 1870's (the marginalistic revolution) are now a strict natural science with Langrangians and similar concepts.

A very good conceptual question that needs research. My opinion is, science is being used in economic studies and science can be benefited more to facilitate economics field.

Going with the definition of sciences as it is tied to the origin of problems, economics is largely a humanitarian science with historical roots in moral philosophy. Neuroeconomics is an attempt to take it in the opposite direction- a natural science. Where economic behavior may be traced to genetic codes/neural pathways. This is quite an ambition but is likely to culminate in an economy of cyborgs-where perhaps implants will one day allow economists to gauge economic propensities purely at a quantitative level. The ultimate dream of the cardinalist camp in utility theory. Glimpses of this trajectory can be found in the current interest in big data/data mining- where understanding is many degrees removed from the agent, inferred mainly through "revealed preferences".