There is another question before this one: is social science science?

The following is the definition of science according to the dictionary: Science is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4.systematized knowledge in general.

5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6.a particular branch of knowledge.

7.skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Economics can not be associated to point one or point 3 but can be identified with other points such as 4. If economics is not a mathematical science or a natural or physical science, then how to call it?. The conventional name "social science" is the one that many scientists use to refer to economics and other branch of knowledge.

Others can disagree with this division of science but this will not change the opinion of those that consider this division very useful one for their scientific work.

What dictionary is this from? Does science only apply to something that fulfills all the above requirements?

I would call social science "science", if their methods are reproducable and based on observation or experimentation.

Sorry if I deviate further from your original question.

The problem is that in social matters, including economic matters, you cannot reproduce all things that happens in the society in a lab or in any other place and you cannot experiment ideas in a practical manner within a society as you can do with other sciences.

Economics may refer to a social science because itutilizes scientific methods to build theories that can help explain the people and organizational behavior.

I think that it is both a science and a social science because it uses science in making decisions.

Yes Economics is both a science and a social science. But Economics is more of a social science. For example, if we focus on economic policy aspect of Economics, much that is not science becomes obvious.

Everyone recognizes that physics is a science. Everyone also recognizes economics--a "social science"-- is somehow not quite the same as physics in its ability to be science-like. But what is a science and how is economics different? At first glance, a science is a way of thinking that emphasizes putting forward basic hypotheses and then doing controlled experiments that are set up to distinguish in stark relief whether each hypothesis is right or wrong. Clearly economists cannot usually do controlled experiments in a laboratory. Economists often are stuck with using historical or cross-country evidence to tease out what might merely suggest a result. Political viewpoints and the everyday language used in economics make unbiased statements or interpretations of results, or the understanding of ideas, imprecise and easily misinterpreted. Economics is a science in some ways but not others.

At second glance, though, even the most fundamental scientific aspects of physics are more complicated than the ideal. Real life physics experiments can't always be set up to test the key hypotheses. Experimental results in physics are never 100% conclusive and are subject to dispute even centuries after the fact. The ideal of creating a physics hypothesis before looking at the evidence is often more of an art than depicted in physics textbooks.

In what ways is economics like an idealized science? unlike an idealized science? Does mathematical modeling make economics closer to being a science than, say, psychology? How can economists keep their own biases in check--and should they? Are there some ideas about which all economists agree? Do disagreements suggest that economics is an exciting, viable academic discipline or a perpetually unresolvable dispute? Sometimes economics doesn't like a science and every things change suddenly!

Basically, economics is a social science, as it deals with the creation of wealth and its utilization by individuals and society. Its laws are not as exact as that of a basic science, where the apple always falls on the ground. For example, there may be a case of upward rising demand curve for some goods, called giffen goods in economics.

I recently read an excellent article by George Soros, the famous financier and founder of Open society institute. I do agree with him and say that Economics is a social/ behavioural science and all aspects of it can not be explained with mathematical modelling and need to think of other atheoretical approach. Problem with economist is that we try to formalize everything and that does not reflect the reality and that's why no model is yet to able to predict all those crises. Secondly, Economics and along with Business administration need to adopt an approach based on chaos theory/ Quantum physics principles for explaining the events of the 21st century instead of thinking in the Newtonian physics paradigm.

For me economics is a science, especially when we consider mainstream to be such, but  first of all it is a social science when we look at all heterodox economics.

We do apply mathematical, econometrc models, we've got even experimental economics, and can (or try to) predict upon modeling etc., but it is social in its roots - according to Smith it has to be moral (again - a vast discussion about it exists already if it should at all) and plays utilitarian role, since its results and predictions have to serve people and nations, (well - that's more in theory then in reality of course but still these are the functions...)

Moreover, as e.g. historic, institutional, neo-institutional schools claimed, our hypothesis, reasoning, tools, methods applied and then outcomes are always embededded in a certain social, historic environment and serve certain social goals...

Just because economics uses science, it does not make it science. Science requires the results from experiments to be repeatable and reproducible, and although some economists can repeat economic experiments some of the time it is not possible for all economists all of the time. More importantly, economics is fundamentally the study of human behaviour. The behaviour of an individual human being can and will never be predicted. If we could predict human behaviour we would not have free-will as everything would be predictable and pre-determined. If you believe in free-will then it follows that human behaviour will never be predicted in a similar fashion to predicting the motion of the planets. For this reason and others economics is not a science it is a social science and based on subjective view points. It is almost impossible to remove these views from the process. In fact I believe it is dangerous to call economics a science, because it gives people the false belief that the results from economic models should be believed with some level of accuracy and certainty. The recent financial crisis is clear evidence that faith in such economic models is illusory. Just as important to denouncing economics as a science is the close relationship between economics and politics. Every macro-economic policy has a political agenda, and it is very difficult to remove subjectivity from that process, even if you are trained in scientific methods.

It is both science and social science.

Consider the "science definition" of Lionel Robbins with that of Kenneth E. Boulding:

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Essay%20on%20the%20Nature%20and%20Significance%20of%20Economic%20Science_2.pdf

http://www.marketsandmorality.com/index.php/mandm/article/download/639/629

Many thanks for your contribution!

Economics is known nowadays as economical sciences. In my opinion, Economics can be considered as a social science with strong mathematical and scientific structure. There are two opinions. Some people argue that economics can be considered as science, but some  others have a different opinion.  The major drawback of economics is said to be the inability to forecast the economic crises well in advance.

The following links show the debates for and against considering economics as science.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/robert-j--shilleron-whether-he-is-a-scientist

http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/College/iseconomicsascience.html

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/12/13/economics-science-wang/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/opinion/yes-economics-is-a-science.html?_r=0

Dear Sudev. Many thanks for your contribution.

Ofcourse Economics is a science in its current status. however, its social science that we try to model with mathematical logics. it may not present 100% the reality but it can give an approximative value.....

This is quite interesting topic for debate. Philosophically speaking, let me group two type of scientists doing research in any field ( be it social or non-social science) until they know either  "nothing about everything" or "every thing about nothing" . The evolving nature of both unknown and known “science of behavior” ( and also the behavior of science ) will continue to prevail until there is human’s  eternal quest for lasting happiness  which can not be fulfilled by material progress alone, nor can it be objectively measured by our existing science.             

 Thanks Manuel for sharing flawed scientific method. The method is also flawed because of omission of what  many great scientists believe in but can not prove it using their established theory of science-  which I think should be corrected by themselves first.

Thanks Manuel. Though I am not a physicist to comprehend your article on Higgs Boson, this has promoted me to share my views on two fundamentally different ways of seeking answer to what is reality or truth  the meaning  of universe- the so-called God ( damn) particle . Our mistakes in knowing the unknown is the portal of discovery but whether we are seeking the same thing or different things using the same or different methods is what I consider the important first step in this debate. To me the humanity is seeking answer to the same thing “the meaning of universe” using two different methodological paths – science and spiritual.  

To my little knowledge, scientists say only 4 % of matter creation is physical and all non physical is spiritual. Scientist do not yet know how massless particle acquires mass . The whole cardinal principle of physics is symmetry which come from idea of beauty  tha has led to social science and conservation principle. Once science finds answer to what particle/matter is then the next  search will be to seek for soul spirit,  thoughtron surrendering themselves to utilize the same extraordinary knowledge /method of  our great  ancient  Rishis (sages /saints). This extraordinary knowledge cannot be judged by our five senses or small portion of our intellects but by the scientific divine law and methods. 

No matter how many great scientists are GOD believers (some say 40 % , other 3%), believing in God alone does not give solution to our eternal quest  for knowing  the  unknown  -the ultimate truth without  universal realization of  the need for our self correction from this technology driven scientific/material progress of unequal world ( electronic age)  to a divine law driven mental age of equal world where everyone enjoy a lasting happiness in this universe. It is yet to be seen how such transitional thinking will withstand the test of time.  Sorry for being a bit emotional to bring spiritual dimension in this interesting debate. Thank you.                             

Its a very interesting question. I think it is directly related to society so my answer for this question is that economics is a social science.

cannot be rated as pure science but some amount of mathematics is involved  and mathematics  falls in sconce  so it can be said both social science  and sconce to the extent particular case involves them

I used to say economics is a social science when I was a student. But not now, as to me it is both social science and a science though social science is also a kind of science as you call it. Fore example, in technological innovation, pointing out the different components that causes an economic constraint in the designed system economical feasibility is a science and acting to take measure to minimize them or any manipulation is a social science.

THIS IS PARTIALLY CORRECT SINCE SOME WORKERS ARE AWARDED NOBEL PRIZE IN  THIS FIELD AND SOME SCIENCE ACADEMIES ARE CONSIDERING AWARD OF FELLWSHIPS IN ECONOMICS BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED IN DATA COLLECTION ONLY

 AS ON TODAY ECONOMICS IS LISTED BY UNIVERSITIES A SOCIAL SCIENCE

To me, using the word "Science" we describe the Knowledge of Nature. Therefore, Sciences try to understand how does nature work and apply these knowledge for the benefit (?) of human. In this way only Physics, Chemistry and Biology should be Science. Economics could be the social science. 

Dear Colleagues and Friends from RG, Economics due to the social issues of many subjects and problems in this field of knowledge, which it deals with is classified in many science centers in the field of social sciences. Social issues related to the economic conditions of people's lives, social determinants of economic development of economic entities and states, social policies conducted by states, behavioral factors of changes in economic situations in individual markets, etc. constitute a significant part of issues that are studied and described in the field of economics. Therefore, economics, even if not all of the issues it deals with, however, in most of the studied economic and financial issues falls within the scope of social sciences.

Best wishes

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Economists have a very difficult task,to predict behaviour of the most chaotic being on the world-man