Social science is NOT a science but a sitcom

Comment on David B. Feldman on ‘Is Psychology Really a Science?’

Blog-Reference

The so-called social sciences have been identified by Feynman as cargo cult sciences: “They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. ... But it doesn’t work. ... So I call these things cargo cult science because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential.”

What is missing is the true theory, with scientific truth well-defined as material and formal consistency. The problem is this, psychologists, for example, know that they do not satisfy scientific standards but they insist nonetheless on the title social science. It has immediately been obvious that Freud’s storytelling and adoption of Greek myth had not much to do with science (for example to Popper) but more with a modern alternative to religion/superstition and with a new format for the entertainment industry. The similarity between a therapy setting and a sitcom simply cannot be overlooked.

All problems would end immediately if the social sciences could stop calling themselves sciences. For whatever reason, they cannot. And because science relies on self-government and the voluntary adherence to scientific ethics and because there is no such thing as science police who expels cargo cult sciences and jails fake scientists, the so-called social sciences continue with what in commonplace terms is a fraud, i.e. with pretending what they not are.

As far as economics defines itself as social science, the same untenable situation prevails. The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the foundational economic concept of profit wrong. It is fraudulent to present this indefensible proto-scientific garbage as science.#2

Because economists lack the true theory their economic policy guidance has NO sound scientific foundations since Adam Smith/Karl Marx. In order to become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false Walrasian microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true systemic macrofoundations. Economics is NOT a social science but a systems science.

The simple reason why economics is a failed science is that both orthodox and heterodox economists share the foundational self-delusion that economics is a social science.

Until this day, economists have NOT gotten the foundational concepts of their subject matter, i.e. profit and income, right. This is like medieval physics before the foundational concept of energy was properly understood.#3

When economists are told that economics does not satisfy the scientific standards of material and formal consistency they invariably fall back on J. S. Mill’s slogan of economics as ‘inexact and separate science’. This, of course, is merely one of the economists’ numerous unacceptable excuses.#4 There is NO such thing as an inexact and separate science. There is only science and non-science respectively cargo cult science. The so-called social sciences and economics fall into the latter category.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure
#2 The real problem with the economics Nobel
#3 Economists’ three-layered scientific incompetence
#4 Failed economics: The losers’ long list of lame excuses

Related 'Economics is NOT a social science' and 'Still on the wrong track' and 'PsySoc — the scourge of economics' and 'The stupidity of Heterodoxy is the life insurance of Orthodoxy'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Not a Science of Behavior

***

REPLY to Matt Franko on Oct 8

You say: “Economics and some of these other unsuccessful disciplines don't attract the best people...”

In order to understand the obvious lack of scientific success, it is crucial to realize that there are political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, and the goal of theoretical economics is to successfully explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics, the scientific standards of material and formal consistency are observed.

Theoretical economics (= science) has been body-snatched by political economists (= agenda pushers). Indeed, it is a fact that political economics does NOT attract the best people. Political economics has achieved NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years. Political economics attracts people that are stupid or corrupt or both.

Science consists of two essential elements: “Research is, in fact, a continuous discussion of the consistency of theories: formal consistency insofar as the discussion relates to the logical cohesion of what is asserted in joint theories; material consistency insofar as the agreement of observations with theories is concerned.” (Klant) Logical consistency is secured by applying the axiomatic-deductive method and empirical consistency is secured by applying state-of-art testing.

Science is well-defined for 2300+ years. Economics is a failed science because economists are incompetent scientists. This applies to both Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy.#1 MMT is part of the mess.

What has been proven is that the formal foundations, i.e. the balances equations, of MMT are false.#2 Because of this, the whole analytical superstructure of MMT is false.

So, how MMTer in general, and Stephanie Kelton, in particular, think and op-ed about the deficit is mostly wrong.#3 Obviously, MMT attracts the wrong folks. These underperformers and storytellers do not even get the elementary math of National Accounting right.


#1 The stupidity of Heterodoxy is the life insurance of Orthodoxy
#2 Rectification of MMT macro accounting
#3 MMT: Redistribution as wellness program

***

REPLY to Ignacio on Oct 9

You ask “Is psychology a science?!?!?!" = ‘is gold money?!?!?!’ something can be analyzed by ‘the scientific method’ but it may be just a figure of speech to say something IS a ‘science’.”

Psychology is NOT a science, and neither is economics. Science is well-defined for 2300+ years by material and formal consistency. Neither psychology nor economics satisfies these criteria. Because of this, they are cargo cult sciences: “They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. ... But it doesn’t work. ... So I call these things cargo cult science because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential.” (Feynman)

The problem with economics is that each year the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” is awarded.#1 In order NOT to mislead the general public, the word ‘sciences’ has to be deleted from the title.#2


#1 The real problem with the economics Nobel
#2 Economics is NOT a science of behavior

***

REPLY to Tom Hickey on Oct 9

Every layperson who is confronted with the statement: Mr. A has been murdered and you are the murderer, understands immediately the concept of scientific truth. Truth is (i) binary true/false with NOTHING in between, and (ii), truth is objective, that is provable in principle, and (iii), that it is worth every effort to find out the truth even if we cannot be absolutely sure that we will be successful. As Popper put it “Although nowadays we have given up the idea of absolutely certain knowledge, we have not by any means given up the idea of the search for truth. (Popper)

Admitting that there is no absolute certain knowledge is compatible with the assertion that the Law of the Lever represents certain knowledge. In fact, science is defined as the body of certain knowledge.

While genuine scientists have no problem with the idea of certain knowledge philosophers, who are known for having produced blather instead of knowledge throughout recorded history, desperately try to keep things in the swamp between true and false where ‘nothing is clear and everything is possible’ (Keynes). This insistence on inconclusiveness is a survival strategy of incompetent scientists and political agenda pushers, in other words, of failed and fake scientists. Needless to emphasize that these folks are the most enthusiastic followers of Feyerabend and tireless proponents of anything-goes.

Philosophers, social scientists, and economists are the traditional clientele of political clowns like the younger Feyerabend. How can science keep these folks at bay?

Let us make a thought experiment. There are two aircraft called PHI and SCI waiting in the maneuvering area. PHI has been designed/constructed by philosophers, psychologists, economists, and other fake scientists. SCI has been designed/constructed by folks who subscribe to the methodology of material/formal consistency as explained in the foreword of every physics textbook. Which aircraft will the fake scientists try to board? Clearly, in order to get rid of these folks, one has to make sure that they risk their lives with their own crappy constructs.

Of course, there is certain truth in economics but after 200+ years economists still have no idea what it looks like. The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism/MMT, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/ formally inconsistent, and all got profit wrong.

Economics is NOT a social science

Comment on Lars Syll on ‘On the persistence of science-fiction economics’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Aug 9

To explain social behavior is the task of psychology, sociology, political science, and other so-called social sciences.

Explaining how the actual economy works is the task of economics. Economists have failed at this task. To be more specific, orthodox AND heterodox economists have failed. After more than 200 years, economists have not even figured out what profit is; that is, they do not understand the foundational phenomenon of their subject matter. As a consequence, economic policy guidance has NEVER had sound scientific foundations.

The scientific incompetence of economists consists in the fact that it is beyond their means to realize that NO way leads from the understanding of Human Nature/motives/behavior/ action to the understanding of how the economic system works. What makes things worse is that there is NO scientifically valid knowledge of Human Nature/motives/behavior/ action, to begin with.

The failure of economics had been programmed by the founding fathers with the definition of the subject matter as a social science: “The fundamental problem, therefore, of the social science, is to find the laws according to which any state of society produces the state which succeeds it and takes its place.” (Mill, 2006, p. 912)

• “What is now commonly understood by the term ‘Political Economy’ is not the science of speculative politics, but a branch of that science. It does not treat of the whole of man’s nature as modified by the social state, nor of the whole conduct of man in society. It is concerned with him solely as a being who desires to possess wealth, and who is capable of judging the comparative efficacy of means for obtaining that end. It predicts only such of the phenomena of the social state as take place in consequence of the pursuit of wealth.” (Mill, 1874, V.38)

• “The laws of economics are to be compared with the laws of the tides, rather than with the simple and exact law of gravitation. For the actions of men are so various and uncertain, that the best statement of tendencies, which we can make in a science of human conduct, must needs be inexact and faulty. This might be urged as a reason against making any statements at all on the subject; ...” (Marshall, 1920, I.III.10)

• “The foundation of political economy and, in general, of every social science, is evidently psychology. A day will come when we shall be able to deduce the laws of social science from the principles of psychology ...” (Pareto, 2014, p. 20)

• “Economics is the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.” (Robbins, 1935, p. 16)

What economists do not realize is that to study human behavior ― which is essentially the second-guessing/interpretation of motives/actions of individuals/groups one knows in most cases only from hearsay ― may be interesting and revealing and satisfying but is ultimately pointless, more precisely, scientifically pointless: “Alexander Rosenberg lays great emphasis on the role of intentionality in the social sciences, for in his view this role explains the nomological failures of the social sciences and supports the view that the social sciences (in anything like their current form) can never succeed in formulating real laws of human behavior.” (Hausman, 1992, p. 326)

The social sciences cannot, for deeper methodological reasons, rise above the level of storytelling. And this is exactly what Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism are. Neither approach satisfies the non-negotiable criteria of science, i.e., material and formal consistency.

Economists face this option: either to be expelled from the sciences or to restart economics as a systems science. This means, in concrete terms, to move from unacceptable behavioral microfoundations and dilettantish Keynesian macrofoundations to objective/ structural/behavior-free macrofoundations.

Economists have, to this day, not understood how science works: “When the premises are certain, true, and primary, and the conclusion formally follows from them, this is demonstration, and produces scientific knowledge of a thing.” (Aristotle). This means that science cannot be built upon behavioral assumptions because there is no such thing as a ‘certain, true, and primary’ behavioral assumption. This is the ultimate reason for the failure of both orthodox and heterodox economics and the persistence of science-fiction economics.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Hausman, D. M. (1992). The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of Economics. Library of Economics and Liberty. URL
Mill, J. S. (1874). Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy. On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation Proper To It. Library of Economics and Liberty. URL
Mill, J. S. (2006). A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive. Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation, Vol. 8 of Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
Pareto, V. (2014). Manual of Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. URL
Robbins, L. (1935). An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London, Bombay, etc.: Macmillan, 2nd edition.

Related 'Objective Principles' and 'Economics and the social science delusion' and 'The happy end of the social science delusion' and 'The Science-of-Man fallacy' and 'How to get rid of the silly Queen' and 'Economics as fool’s paradise' and 'Disoriented and lost in folk psychology' and 'Economics between cargo cult, farce, and fraud' and 'The stupidity of Heterodoxy is the life insurance of Orthodoxy' and 'Economics is not a science, not a religion, but proto-scientific garbage' and 'A social science is NOT a science but a sitcom' and 'Overreach: Economists have their fingers in every pie except real economics' and 'Did economics fail? No! Yes, and everybody knows it!' and 'Why is economics a total scientific failure?' and 'PsySoc — the scourge of economics' and 'Economics as storytelling and entertainment for the masses' and 'Do first your macroeconomic homework!' and 'What’s the use of economists?' and 'Beware of the moralizing economist' and 'The canonical macroeconomic model'. For details of the big picture, see cross-references Not a Science of Behavior and cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists.

***

Graphic AXEC121g

Economics and the social science delusion

Comment on Maria Alejandra Madi on ‘The formal and the substantive meanings of “economics”’

Blog-Reference

Economics is a failed science. This means more specifically: Orthodoxy has failed to produce anything of real scientific value and Heterodoxy has failed to develop a superior alternative.

Quite naturally, there are many ideas about causes and cures “There is another alternative: to formulate a completely new research program and conceptual approach. As we have seen, this is often spoken of, but there is still no indication of what it might mean.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 362)

Let us face reality: economists have proven their scientific incompetence over more than 200 years and have no clue about how to proceed. Until this day, the representative economist cannot tell what profit is and what the essential difference between profit and income is and what this means for growth/boom/bust.

Since Adam Smith, economics claims to be a science. It started as a mixture of sociology and political science: “The science which traces the laws of such of the phenomena of society as arise from the combined operations of mankind for the production of wealth, ...” (Mill, 1874, V.39)

Right from the beginning, economists saw themselves as agenda pushers for some greater good and science as a means to that end. The idea of pure science, i.e. the free and independent pursuit of knowledge, never occurred to these storytellers and propagandists.

With the Marginalists, the focus shifted to methodological individualism and economics became a mixture of dilettantish psychology, sociology, and political science.

The red thread of the history of economic thought is that both orthodox and heterodox economists regarded economics as a social science. This is why they both failed.

Economics is NOT a science of individual/social/political behavior — this is the social science delusion — but of the behavior of the monetary economy. All Human-Nature issues are the subject matter of other disciplines (psychology, sociology, anthropology, biology/ Darwinism, political science, social philosophy, history, etcetera) and are taken in from these by way of multi-disciplinary cooperation.

The contributions of sociologists/historians/etc are valuable for economics but social scientists are, strictly speaking, out of economics. Economists have to answer the question of how the monetary economy works. Until now they cannot even answer the question of what profit is (2015). And, of course, Karl Polanyi cannot answer it either.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Ingrao, B., and Israel, G. (1990). The Invisible Hand. Economic Equilibrium in the History of Science. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press.
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2015). How the Intelligent Non-Economist Can Refute Every Economist Hands Down. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2705395: 1–6. URL
Mill, J. S. (1874). Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy. On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation Proper To It. Library of Economics and Liberty. URL

Related 'Economists’ three-layered scientific incompetence' and 'The happy end of the social science delusion' and 'The Science-of-Man fallacy' and 'Why economists have not been effective in economics' and 'The irrelevance of populism for economics' and 'Fact of life: your econ prof is scientifically incompetent'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Not a Science of Behavior.

The happy end of the social science delusion

Comment on Lars Syll on ‘Are all models wrong?’

Blog-Reference

For more than two thousand years now, physicists have seen falling leaves but until this day we have no scientific theory of this phenomenon. Instead, we have the theory of gravity, motion, ballistics, etc.

The first thing to notice is that physicists are not concerned with reality as such but with certain aspects of reality. In other words, reality is narrowed down to those general aspects that can be dealt with effectively by applying tools that are already available or are developed specifically for the task at hand.

What a scientist instinctively avoids are questions that cannot be answered in principle like: Is God male or female? Exactly this type of question is what occupies non-scientists most of their time.

Science is often accused of being narrow or over-simplistic. However, those who have tried to tackle the fullness of reality head-on have never produced more than colorful descriptions, interesting gossip, subjective interpretations, data-decorated hunches, or extensively interpolated individual histories. In the meantime, narrowly focused science has moved in an unbroken sequence of logical steps from the elementary Law of the Lever to the unobservable deep reality of quantum particles and quarks.

Reality is not something given and simply to be looked upon — this is the delusion of naive empiricism — but is continuously redefined in the course of scientific research itself.

While it is obvious that economics has much to do with human behavior it is a methodological mistake to primarily focus on this aspect of economic reality, just as it a mistake to focus on individual flying leaves in order to find out something general about falling bodies. No way leads from the observation of a myriad of falling leaves to the Universal Law of Falling Bodies. Likewise, no way leads from the observation of individual behavior to the systemic economic laws.

The so-called social sciences have always been a misguided endeavor. The reason is simple. “By having a vague theory it is possible to get either result. ... It is usually said when this is pointed out, ‘When you are dealing with psychological matters things can't be defined so precisely’. Yes, but then you cannot claim to know anything about it.” (Feynman, 1992, p. 159)

Certain knowledge about human behavior is hard to come by, to say the least, and to circumvent this fundamental difficulty by postulating constrained optimization is of breathtaking naivety — or worse.

It has not been such a good idea to build economics on a green cheese assumption about human behavior. Therefore, “... if we wish to place economic science upon a solid basis, we must make it completely independent of psychological assumptions and philosophical hypotheses.” (Slutzky, quoted in Mirowski, 1995, p. 362) see also (Hudík, 2011)

This is exactly the opposite of what may be called Hume’s methodological delusion: “And as the science of man is the only solid foundation for the other sciences, so the only solid foundation we can give to this science itself must be laid on experience and observation.” (Hume, 2012, Introduction)

The results of Hume’s program are, as to be expected: “...there has been no progress in developing laws of human behavior for the last twenty-five hundred years.” (Hausman, 1992, p. 320)

The science of man, or what we call social sciences, has no solid foundation. As a matter of principle, there is no such thing as a social science. Therefore, the first methodological task is to take economics out of what Feynman aptly called cargo cult science.

The new definition of economics is objective-structural-systemic and entirely free of any behavioral connotations: economics is the science that studies how the monetary economy works. Thus, the popular yet forever pointless second-guessing of human motives and behavior can be left to psychology, sociology, political sciences, philosophy, mythology, literature or science fiction.

Economics is a failed science and the ultimate cause is given with this definition: “It is a touchstone of accepted economics that all explanations must run in terms of the actions and reactions of individuals.“ (Arrow, 1994, p. 1)

Accepted economics is scientifically unacceptable.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Arrow, K. J. (1994). Methodological Individualism and Social Knowledge. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 84(2): 1–9. URL
Feynman, R. P. (1992). The Character of Physical Law. London: Penguin.
Hausman, D. M. (1992). The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudík, M. (2011). Why Economics is Not a Science of Behaviour. Journal of Economic Methodology, 18(2): 147–162.
Hume, D. (2012). A Treatise of Human Nature. Project Gutenberg EBook. URL
Mirowski, P. (1995). More Heat than Light. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Related 'From PsySoc to SysHum' and 'The Science-of-Man fallacy' and 'PsySoc — the scourge of economics' and 'The art of start' and 'A farewell to PsySoc economics' and 'Redefining economics' and 'Economics vs. Sociology' and 'Questions and answers about economics'.

***

ICYMI (Henry, September 13)

True to form, economists got also the criterion of simplicity into the wrong throat: “Others, the inexperienced students, make guesses that are very complicated, and it sort of looks as if it is all right, but I know it is not true because the truth always turns out to be simpler than you thought.” (Feynman, 1922)

Economists explain their failure regularly with the complexity of the subject matter. This argument does not hold water.

“But in fact, there are good reasons, not only for the belief that social science is less complicated than physics, but also for the belief that concrete social situations are in general less complicated than concrete physical situations.” (Popper, 1960)

‘All models are false’ is a correct observation as far as standard economics is concerned, but the usual explanation is misleading.

“I think we have to admit that most successful scientific theories are lucky over-simplifications. (Popper, 1994)

The keyword is lucky.


Related 'Two steps towards truth'.

United in the social science delusion

Comment on Lars Syll on ‘Microfoundations — contestable incoherence’

Blog-Reference

“Walras approached Poincaré for his approval. ... But Poincaré was devoutly committed to applied mathematics and did not fail to notice that utility is a nonmeasurable magnitude. ... He also wondered about the premises of Walras’s mathematics: It might be reasonable, as a first approximation, to regard men as completely self-interested, but the assumption of perfect foreknowledge ‘perhaps requires a certain reserve’.” (Porter, 1994, p. 154)

Rational expectations and the rest of the neoclassical assumptions were never taken seriously by real scientists. The question is: Why has the representative economist not realized this in more than 100 years?

Lars Syll comes close to the right answer: “The fact that Lucas introduced rational expectations as a consistency axiom is not really an argument to why we should accept it as an acceptable assumption in a theory or model purporting to explain real macroeconomic processes.” (see intro)

Of course, rational expectation is an unacceptable behavioral assumption. However, the error/mistake of Orthodoxy does not lie in this particular green cheese assumption but in a complete failure to understand what the scientific method is all about.

Rational expectation, and constrained optimization, or utility maximization for that matter, are perfectly in line with the accepted methodology: “It is a touchstone of accepted economics that all explanations must run in terms of the actions and reactions of individuals. Our behavior in judging economic research, in peer review of papers and research, and in promotions, includes the criterion that in principle the behavior we explain and the policies we propose are explicable in terms of individuals, not of other social categories.” (Arrow, 1994, p. 1); see also (Arnsperger and Varoufakis, 2006)

The fundamental methodological blunder resides in the idea that economics is about human behavior. Let us call this the social science delusion. The irony is that Heterodoxy is even more convinced that economics is essentially a social science. It differs from Orthodoxy only insofar as it claims that its behavioral assumptions are more ‘realistic’.

The fact of the matter is that economics is about the behavior of the economic system and not about the behavior of individuals. This, indeed, is the realm of psychology, sociology, anthropology, etcetera. To speculate about rational or irrational human behavior is not economic analysis at all (Hudík, 2011).

This means that the subject matter of economics has to be redefined. The fault of Orthodoxy is not so much that it introduces rational expectation as a behavioral axiom; the methodological blunder is that there is no such thing as a specific behavioral axiom.

No way leads from the understanding of human behavior to the understanding of how the actual economy works. This fully explains why economics is a failed science.

Because there is no such thing as a behavioral axiom, Lars Syll is right: “And that ought to be rather embarrassing for those ilks of macroeconomists to whom axiomatics and deductivity is the hallmark of science tout court.”

Lars Syll is completely wrong, though, in concluding that axiomatics and deductivity have to be abandoned as ‘horseshit’. See here.

From the fact that the behavioral axioms of Orthodoxy are forever beyond acceptability does not follow that axiomatization is wrong. It follows that subjective behavioral axioms have to be replaced by objective structural axioms.

To find the correct axioms is the prime task of economics since J. S. Mill: “What are the propositions which may reasonably be received without proof? That there must be some such propositions all are agreed, since there cannot be an infinite series of proof, a chain suspended from nothing. But to determine what these propositions are, is the opus magnum of the more recondite mental philosophy.” (Mill, 2006, p. 746)

Neither Orthodoxy nor Heterodoxy has achieved the opus magnum.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Arnsperger, C., and Varoufakis, Y. (2006). What Is Neoclassical Economics? The Three Axioms Responsible for its Theoretical Oeuvre, Practical Irrelevance and, thus, Discursive Power. Paneconomicus, 1: 5–18.
Arrow, K. J. (1994). Methodological Individualism and Social Knowledge. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 84(2): 1–9. URL
Hudík, M. (2011). Why Economics is Not a Science of Behaviour. Journal of Economic Methodology, 18(2): 147–162.
Mill, J. S. (2006). Principles of Political Economy With Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy, Volume 3, Books III-V of Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. URL
Porter, T. M. (1994). Rigor and Practicality: Rival Ideals of Quantification in Nineteenth-Century Economics. In P. Mirowski (Ed.), Natural Images in Economic Thought, 128–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Related 'Austrian blather' and 'Joan Robinson and the early death of Behavioral Economics' and 'Still in the woods' and 'Economics is NOT a science of behavior (IV) and 'Heterodoxy ― an axiomatic failure just like Orthodoxy'. For details of the big picture, see cross-references Not a Science of Behavior and cross-references Methodology, and cross-references Axiomatization.

For more on macrofoundations, see AXECquery

***

Graphic AXEC121g

Occasional X: Economics is NOT a social science but a systems science (XIV)

#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow

“Economics is the study of the economy, not the study of economists.” (Ricardo Reis)

Economics is the study of how economic systems work. However, even today, economists do not understand it. Economics is not a social science. This is the wrong…

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 24, 2025

Related  'Cross-references Not a Science of Behavior' 

Occasional Tweets: Get it, economics is not a social science but a systems science

 

The history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. #Economists are not #Scientists but #Clowns/#UsefulIdiots in the political #CircusMaximus.

Economics is NOT a social sciencehttps://t.co/zJHeQboYGH

and NOT a science of behaviorhttps://t.co/MzGiF9gpXa pic.twitter.com/rG708Gt9ul

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) December 1, 2021

Occasional X: Economics is NOT a social science but a systems science (XIII)

 

#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow

Economics is about how the economy works. It is a Systems Science and NOT a Social Science. Economists have messed it up since the founding fathers.

The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives)… pic.twitter.com/qkpxfM2erx

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) March 4, 2025

Occasional Tweets: The futile attempt to sell economics as social/behavioral science (I)

 

Economics is NOT a social sciencehttps://t.co/zJHeQboYGH

and NOT about human behaviorhttps://t.co/MzGiF9gpXa#Economics is about how the economic #System works. That, #Economists have still NOT figured out because they are too stupid for #Science. pic.twitter.com/mw1UfdqQ4R

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) March 4, 2022

For more about methodology see AXECquery. 

Occasional Tweets: Economics is NOT a social science but a systems science (V)

 

#Econ#FailedFakeScience#Economics is about how the #Economy works. It is a #SystemsScience & NOT a #SocialScience i.e. NOT about #HumanNature / #Motives / #Behavior / #Choice / #Incentives / #Expectations etc.

Cross-ref: Not a Science of Behaviorhttps://t.co/qp0nGQdvVh

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) October 2, 2023

Occasional Tweets: Economics is NOT a social science but a systems science (II)

 

#Econ#FailedFakeScience#Economics is about how the #Economy behaves. It is a #SystemsScience & NOT a #SocialScience i.e. NOT about #HumanNature / #Motives / #Behavior / #Choice / #Actions / #Incentives / #Happiness. Cross-ref ⇒https://t.co/ENmXGsBMvD

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) June 21, 2023

For more about social science see AXECquery. 

Occasional X: Economics is NOT a social science but a systems science (XI)

 

#Economics#FailedFakeScience#PsySoc

“All of economics is a behavioural science. The difference is whether you think the behaviour is irrational or rational.” (FT, Eugene Fama)

Economics is about how the #Economy works. It is a #SystemsScience and NOT a #SocialScience.…

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) August 31, 2024

Also at Gita Gopinath 

 

Occasional Tweets: Economics is NOT a social science but a systems science (I)

 

#Econ#FailedScience#ScientificIncompetence

To this day, #Economists do not understand that #Economics is NOT a #SocialScience but a #SystemsScience. There is NO such thing as behavioral laws but there are systemic laws, e.g. the #ProfitLaw. ⇒https://t.co/LEW2Ei6khR pic.twitter.com/ffBO91JuZP

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) May 27, 2021

For more about the failure of the PsySoc approach see AXECquery.

For more about the systems approach see AXECquery.

Occasional Tweets: Economics is NOT a social science but a systems science (III)

 

#FailedFakeScience

Veblen was a #Sociologist and NOT an #Economist. He had NO idea how the #Economy works. #Economics is a #SystemsScience & NOT a #SocialScience i.e. NOT about #HumanNature / #Motives / #Behavior / #Choice / #Actions / #Incentives / #Happiness / #SalesPromotion.

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) June 25, 2023

Occasional Xs: Economics is NOT a social science but a systems science (VI)

 

#Econ#FailedFakeScience

Freedom is a political concept. #Economists who do not get tired of waving the flag of #Freedom/#Liberty are NOT #Scientists. They have NO idea how the #Economy works but are #AgendaPushers / #UsefulIdiots for the #Oligarchy. ⇒https://t.co/CPW3M1JQYK pic.twitter.com/rKCCX6Kf3L

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) October 12, 2023

Occasional Xs: Economics is NOT a social science but a systems science (VII)

 

#Econ#Economics is about how the #Economy works. It is a #SystemsScience & NOT a #SocialScience i.e. NOT about #HumanNature / #Motives / #Behavior / #Choice / #Incentives / #Expectations / #Liberty etc. Actually, it is #FailedFakeScience & moronic political #AgendaPushing.

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) December 2, 2023

Occasional X: Economics is NOT a social science but a systems science (XII)

 

#Economics#FailedFakeScience#PsySoc

“No one cares more about your personal success than you do.” is NOT “Common Sense Economics” but #TrivialPsychology. And with this kind of psycho blather, one cannot explain how the economic #System works. ⇒

Economics is NOT about Human…

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) September 25, 2024

Occasional Xs: Economics is NOT a social science but a systems science (X)

 

#Econ#FailedFakeScience#PsySoc#Economics is about how the #Economy works. It is a #SystemsScience & NOT a #SocialScience i.e. NOT about #HumanNature / #Motives / #Behavior / #Choice / #Incentives / #Expectations etc. #PsychoSocialEcon has always been proto-scientific garbage. pic.twitter.com/PnetNlWbUA

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) February 19, 2024

Occasional Tweets: Economics is NOT a social science but a systems science (IV)

 

#Econ#FailedFakeScience#Economics is about how the #Economy behaves. It is a #SystemsScience & NOT a #SocialScience i.e. NOT about #HumanNature / #Motives / #Behavior / #Choice / #Actions / #Incentives / #Subjectivity/ #Wellbeing/#Happiness. Cross-ref⇒https://t.co/ENmXGsBMvD pic.twitter.com/BFDGWHkPJO

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) July 13, 2023

Occasional Xs: Economics is NOT a social science but a systems science (VIII)

 

#Econ#FailedFakeScience#Economics is about how the #Economy works. It is a #SystemsScience & NOT a #SocialScience i.e. NOT about #HumanNature / #Motives / #Behavior / #Choice / #Incentives / #Expectations etc. #PsychoSocialEcon has always been proto-scientific garbage. pic.twitter.com/1ekyEvYhsS

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) December 29, 2023