I know the answer is Evolution by Natural Selection, but what about the runners up?
Would Quantum Mechanics and the Austrian School/Free Market Economics be 2nd and 3rd place?
Relativity and QM would be up there (ironically, most creationists deny those, too).
I don't know if any school of economics (or any other social science) could make that claim because it's an apples/oranges comparison.
Quote from: MrBogosity on April 15, 2011, 01:15:59 PMRelativity and QM would be up there
I thought so. :)
Quote from: MrBogosity on April 15, 2011, 01:15:59 PM(ironically, most creationists deny those, too).
Why am I not surprised?
Quote from: MrBogosity on April 15, 2011, 01:15:59 PMI don't know if any school of economics (or any other social science) could make that claim because it's an apples/oranges comparison.
How is it an apples/oranges comparison? Is it because the Social Sciences tend to have lax standards compared to the hard sciences?
Also, which various schools of economics (Socialist, Keynesian, Mercantilism, Chicago, Neo-classical, Classical, Austrian, etc)
Would you agree that the one best supported by the evidence (to date at least) would be the Austrian School?
In particular, the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle? And the broken window fallacy (e.g. every $1.00 by the government on science, crowds out $1.25; war = prosperity)?
Sure, but I don't know how you would compare that level of support to physical sciences.
Sorry, but I didn't you replied to that post after my editing.
Here was the full bit (Sorry for the inconvenience):
Quote from: MrBogosity on April 15, 2011, 01:15:59 PMI don't know if any school of economics (or any other social science) could make that claim because it's an apples/oranges comparison.
How is it an apples/oranges comparison? Is it because the Social Sciences tend to have lax standards compared to the hard sciences?
Also, which various schools of economics (Socialist, Keynesian, Mercantilism, Chicago, Neo-classical, Classical, Austrian, etc)
Would you agree that the one best supported by the evidence (to date at least) would be the Austrian School?
In particular, the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle? And the broken window fallacy (e.g. every $1.00 by the government on science, crowds out $1.25; war = prosperity)?
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on April 15, 2011, 01:29:15 PMHow is it an apples/oranges comparison? Is it because the Social Sciences tend to have lax standards compared to the hard sciences?
I guess a physical scientist might consider it lax. It's not like you can grow a petri dish full of Baccilus economicus, crank up interest rates and see what happens. But that's hardly a failing of the science itself; that's just the constraints that it's under.
Indeed.
I often recall Jacob Spinney pointing out that, with economics, unlike say, physics, you really can't do controlled experiments, as humans have the whole free will and reaction/Hawthorne effect going on. So you have to rely on a priori methods, such as the science of praxeology.
And you yourself have shared that Mises, in his book Human Action, has shown how trying to treat economics like a physical science is a method fraught with peril.
Or, as the mises.org quiz "Are You an Austrian" puts it:
"(Question) 2. What is the proper method to conduct research in economic science?"
Austrian School Answer:
"The economist should not mimic the behavior of the natural scientists, because the social sciences involve human beings. Human action is characterized by intentional behavior, which involves the rational use of means to achieve desired ends. The very subject matter of economics—capital goods, money, wage rates, etc.—is not defined by physical or chemical properties, but instead by the mental or subjective attitudes that human minds take toward these things. Consequently, the proper method for an economist is to start with self-evident axioms—such as that people try to achieve the highest satisfaction at the lowest cost—and logically deduce conclusions from them."
Some might disagree or find this idea un-scientific, yet it's the method been the most successful, scientifically, of any school of economics. So there must be something right with it.