Let us see the basics of economics. Their object is large enough – and this might be a good plus, but also the opposite, i.e. let us define what exactly is not economics. When the object seems to be too large, how serious can be this science in itself ? As for its method, this comprises at least two zones. The first one can be called the ‘essence’, the other part can be called the ‘borrowed’ one (see what belongs to mathematics and other sciences). This latter can be more easily identified, but concomitantly does not define economics, as essentially – if it did, this wouldn't be economics (a scientific entity in itself) any longer. But, back to the first part, as the essence, this stays difficult to be defined. Or, this is the very drama of a science.
Article Economics: the introductory lesson to be taught and learned
What exactly is your question? Your pretext is perplexing and in need of extra elaboration; also your main question is extremely vague.
Thank you, Sultan, and I fully agree with you. The problem is, let me remind, that it is about my recently published book entuitled 'Basic Economics'. Un fortunately, it is not available on Research Gate, due to my (too discreet) publisher (LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, in Saarbrucken, Germany). Shortly, I asked my question like this since my paper is a book-mannual addressed to beginner students. I here develop what can be called 'graphical method' of teaching-learning economics and this method tries to avoid both a traditional literary text and too much mathematics in approaching economic phenomena. But even previously than these, I realize, as a professor today, and even as a former student that nobody likes economics. There is a real struggle making it comfortable to whom is supposed to learn it. Thank you for intervening in this dialogue and good luck to you!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Economics