January 1, 2015

Non-existence of economic science

Comment on Lars Syll on 'Piketty and the non-existence of economic science'


“... suppose they [the economists] did reject all theories that were empirically falsified ... Nothing would be left standing; there would be no economics.” (Hands, 2001, p. 404)

As a matter of fact, there is no economic science.

But how does it come that the peer-reviewed journals nearly explode with accepted contributions to the official body of economic science?

Economists simply ignore refutation, that is, they violate the First and Fundamental Law of Science. “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941, pp. 369-370)

Assessed according to the criteria of science, economics is already for a considerable time over the cliff. It keeps on running because of the overriding imperative: The show must go on ― who stops is done.

“I think that the discipline is in need of a major overhaul.” (Hausman, 1992, p. 263)

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

Hands, D.W. (2001). Reflection without Rules. Economic Methodology and Contemporary Science Theory. Cambridge, New York, etc: Cambridge University Press.
Hausman, D. M. (1992). The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morgenstern, O. (1941). Professor Hicks on Value and Capital. Journal of Political Economy, 49(3): 361–393. URL


Wikimedia AXEC136g