The Marginal Revolution was started by the founders of the Austrian School, which in turn lead to the rebirth of Classical Economics as Neoclassical Economics. It was also in response to other economic schools such as the German Historicists and company (which supposed no economic laws existed what so ever).
Understood. But nowadays if someone describes themselves as neo-classical, it means they subscribe to things like the theory of perfect competition, i.e. empirical stuff, certainly not Austrian. The Austrian school and neo-classical school went different ways long ago. Correct me if I’m wrong.
That’s partly true, but it’s better to consider in terms of hierarchy as I’ll diagram here.
Classical → Neoclassical → …
Neoclassical → Austrian
Neoclassical → Keynesianism → …
Keynesianism → Friedman/Stigler/“Chicago” (Non-Knightian) (IMHO since Friedman was using Keynes own framework to refute it, he in turn in theory ultimately adopts a Keynesian stance, albeit in an awkward way…)
Keynesianism → Neo-Keynesianism (Neoclassical-Keynesian Synthesis)
And so on as there are other schools such as the Complexity Economics school, which could be called an aberant school since it has more in common with Systems Thinking and Information Theory than Economics by itself (even though it adopts many econometrics created by Keynesians and Chicagoan, but they themselves take on the work of folks like Turing, Neumann, and Shannon to form many of their own theories and methods). So the schools in economics aren’t all neatly tied together save for the ones I diagramed above. Atleast if my memory serves.
so…giles accuses everyone of having no scientific grounding yet presents no evidence that he knows the difference between induction and deduction. I’d suggest looking into the history of the scientific method.
A science is “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.” Economics fits this definition.
Giles is proper in utilziing the term science. Science has been used to even describe what one would think of as non-scientific such as specific mathematical disciplines. Science simply means a practice of repeatable/reproducible knowledge. Natural science is empirically driven repeatable/reproducible knowledge. Just as a social science is a empirically and/or deductively driven repeatable/reproducible knowledge. And so on. 
HIVE MIND
And how can you separate politics from economics?
I have a feeling as to what thread you are referring to. In what way did that fellow’s questions or his follow-ups demonstrate any knowledge or giving a damn about economics? He asked a political question, got political answers, and responded with more political statements. What exactly was the issue?
Which is the same as calling it a philosophy…
About the latter part of the sentence: what is wrong with that? I actually think that he deviated too much from Tucker et al, at least in the area of economic history (ie; Tucker’s “Four Monopolies”).
Which makes the word “science” almost completely meaningless…
I always thought it was a joke that in my sociology class, the professor opened with a defense that it is a science.
All sciences are philosophy but not all philosophy is science.
While we are on the subject I will recommend Hayek’s “The Counter-Revolution of Science.” As others have said, science as a term is independent of methodology. Mathematics is a science and certainly mathemeticians do not use a scientistic methodology. A general definition of ‘science’ that includes economics and mathematics certainly does not render the term nigh meaningless.
Wertfreiheit.
Are politics and economics often part of the same worldview? Yes. Rothbard, Mises, Block, Hoppe, et al. prove this everytime they use an Austrian argument to show that a non-libertarian policy is doomed to failure.Likewise, Keynesians show this when they use their “economics” to argue for left-liberal policy. but one doesn’t necessarily follow the other. One could possibly recognize the truth of [Misesian] Austrian Economics and still be a socialist because the person in question is an evil SOB pining for the end of civilization as we know it.
You mean Post-Hayekian socialists?
Those are pretty much the most important works in mainstream and Austrian economics (at least at an intermediate level) right now, so if you wish to understand economic science, you’d best read them. Otherwise dismissing economic science as very simple just makes you look foolish.
Neoclassical economics (originating with Jevons, Menger and Walras in that order) was an attempt to explain economic phenomena (read: price formation) as the result of the marginal choices of individuals, thus rejecting the objective theory of value as espoused by the classical economists (Smith et al). Now, I think (and presumably so do most others here) that the line of neoclassical economics that is known as “Austrian economics” is better able to do this than economists that are considered neoclassical in a more narrow sense. Since the latter group has taken the wrong path with regards to their methodology, they’re unable to explain what neoclassical economic purports to explain.
Keep in mind, Mises didn’t refer to himself as an Austrian economist well into the 20th C.
We’re going to disagree on this, and the fact is that you’re better qualified to make a judgement on the subject than I am. As I see it though, Rothbard could have got to exactly where he did without the use of individualist anarchist thought. Had he not resorted to the individualist anarchist thought he would have avoided the more questionable aspects of their thought (LTV).
I’ve never said otherwise, my point was that economic science is economic science and should not be confused with ones political beliefs.
I think Rothbard was an excellent historian and a competant economist. His political philosophy on the other hand left a lot to be desired. As for Hoppe, as many here may know, I’m a huge fan of his. I just don’t think he’s made huge contributions to economics, his work on sociology is far superior. As for the current generations of Austrians I think Joe Salerno is the most promising.
Math is not a science no matter how much mathematicians want it to be, unless you want the word “science” to be very loosely defined.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
“a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.”
If this is really a valid definition of “science”, then grammar is a science.
That is the definition of science. We must not conflate the colloquial perception of science (that is, the natural sciences and their associated methodologies) with the definition of the term.
What is your definition of ‘science’?
Given that we are discussing what people have read, has anyone here read Matteusz Machaj’s paper on Economic calculation? I couldn’t help but read it while covering part 3 of Human Action and it really has made me start to see the whole problem of Economic Calculation in a different light in terms of property control and an “intellectual division of labour”. I’ll probably need to read it again, but it was most stimulating!
Maybe we should set an entrance exam for participants in the Economics section of this forum[:P]