/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8386633

> Physics and chemistry were studied for literally thousands of years before the even passable local theories were developed in the late middle ages / early Renaissance. Economics is actually very young in comparison and has stronger theories than, say, alchemical theories were for chemistry.

This is a totally invalid argument to purport. The development of the natural sciences since its genesis was indeed gradual due to the complete lack of theoretical bases - and as such, relied on extremely presumptuous postulation in its infancy. Empirical discovery only began to gain momentum with the evolution and development of reliable methods and technology - these which were the product of previous scientific theory, and so their existed a co-dependency between early scientific discovery and methodology. What 'sparked' the exponential growth of the natural sciences during the renaissance period was the small number of somewhat blind or completely serendipitous empirical discoveries of the previous eras - which then had formed an early theoretical bases for chemistry and physics.

Any infant social science, such as economics, has a great degree of foundation already available to it - stable economies, a wealth of historical data, urbanisation, the internet (non-physical markets), and rigorous, objectively based methods for analysis (such as the scientific method itself). You cannot compare the timeline of the natural sciences to emerging sciences such as economics - inferring that they should be given equal time to become systematic.

>It's very young and progressing pretty normally as far as I can tell.

As far as you can tell? You sound like you've been observing the field expand for hundreds of years.

Not even doctors need biology.