4
Should "soft science" be considered real science?
(lemmychan.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2026
4 points (61.1% liked)
Asklemmy
54075 readers
361 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Well economics damn well shouldn't.
Why not?
Sure, but economics itself can be studied scientifically.
Can it? Can't exactly do double-blind case controlled studies.
More importantly though, economics is rarely studied scientifically. If nothing else, allowing the existing economists of the world to call themselves scientists is not deserved. Until economics is approached with the academic rigour of history and sociology it shouldn't really be called a science.
Economics still can be analyzed scientifically and from a materialist perspective. For example, Marxist economics.