IsAs:"You do realize that experimental economics has quickly become a very large and very important part of economics, don't you? And it very much has controlled test conditions, and all the other requirements of a hard science."
While indeed economy tends nowdays to become a sounder science, I would be more circumspect about what you called controlled test conditions. Especially when it comes to repeatability, and especially when it comes to large economical systems. In such cases, one can mostly do only statistics, which hardly constitute controlled test conditions, or definite results for that matter.
IsAs:"Furthermore, most of the problems with economic prediction have stemmed from the axiom of rational behavior. This aspect too is being worked on by several notables, working to replace the standard of rationality with a "constrained rationality."
Well, take just a simple look around you, and tell me how well do people fit in the standard Rational Economic Person (REP) model used by most economical models. And if you are really familiar with statistics, then you will have a very hard time arguing the fact that say, the global market stability concept is not a form of gambling.
Just because there is an axiom does not mean the axiom is correct, nor does it mean that it offers economics a hard science character (especially when expriment and reproducibility lack as a matter of principle in many areas of the economics).
IsAs:"This has been an ongoing trend for quite a while: economics becomes more and more a hard science every day."
Just be honest. While this trend indeed exists, there are principial issues that prevent economics to become a hard science. This is a well known issue. Take repetability of economic testing for instance. To achieve repetability, even in the statistical sense, one needs to limit the economic behaviour in the model. Such limitations, in turn, will constrain the economy to given patterns, which leads to economical failure (which is obvious to logic, and has also been experimentally proven).
IsAs:"You merely have to compare what it is today to what it was a hundred years ago to see this."
You are right in the sense that nowdays there are attempts to define economics at a more fundamental level. But do not forget that economics is a field with an agenda, and more so than any other field in science.I do not particularly see much difference in the economical behavior of the Rothschields two hundred years ago and today. Or in the J.P. Morgan's economical behavior. Or Chase for that matter. And I can continue with the examples. How do you explain this aspect?
IsAs:"And while it will never be the same as physics or somesuch--it does deal with human behavior, and all our iregularities, after all--it will only become more important, applicable, and accurate as time goes on."
Well, think about the statement you made. Economics deals with human behavior principally, and the latter has been documented in a lot more detail that for over 3-400 years. And while psychology does not make today any claims of extraordinary accuracy(with all the wealth of information about human nature it has gathered over time), economic, claims in a different context that it attempts even today to regard itself as a rather accurate science. Furthermore, it does so while at the same time it embraces the concept of instability as a fundamental and necessary tool for economic evolution.
Under such circumstances, what is the accuracy limit that economics as a science can ever attend? Have you ever thought about this aspect?
