You know what I like about science?

[white_wolf]

When theories are completely proven false they are abandoned. No one believes the Geo-centric theory of the Universe anymore, because it has been observed to be false. No one believes it is possible to exceed or even reach the speed of light, because it has been proven impossible. Once a theory has been proven wrong, scientists move on to a new theory to explain things. Within that context, I have a question. Are economists scientists? It seems to me that supply-side and trickle down theory have been proven false, and yet there are a lot of economists who cling to them still.

[Drale]

1. Who says you can't reach or exceed the speed of light?

Just because we can't do it with our limited technology doesn't mean its not possible.

[white_wolf]

4. Einstein said it was impossible to reach the speed of light.

If you want to read more here is an FAQ from Virgina Tech: http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/sr.html

[Drale]

6. Einstein lived in a time of tubes and computers the size of buildings

We still have a very limited knowledge of the universe. The theory of relativity is a theory, although its helped us understand things, its very possible it will one day be deemed wrong. Who knows one day we could figure out a way to move faster then light or a way to negate the need to move that fast altogether. I like to think that anything is possible given the right knowledge, technology and willingness to fail at something.

[Speck Tater]

12. Einstein PROVED nothing.

He proposed a theory, which has since be subject to much testing and verification. But in science NOTHING is EVER "proved", and everything is always subject to revision. In fact, some evidence exists for superluminal velocities, including some laser ranging experiments that may cast doubt of Special Relativity. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion ) So the final chapter not only has not been written, but never will be.

[howard112211]

5. ...

this is why it cannot be done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

However, as a caveat, some people claim that if we had negative energy densities we could create one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
which would allow us to circumvent the problems discussed in the first link. However, some say the that the problem of creating one of them is equivalent to the problem of creating a time machine.

[Richardo]

2. :^)

:D

[customerserviceguy]

3. Economics is a social science, not a physical one

In social science, bunk ideas can persist for much longer than they do in physical science.

[BadgerKid]

7. It is possible to exceed the "speed of light"...

...in media other than vacuum.

[quaker bill]

8. Because

in economics, there are too many unquantified variables for one.

Secondly, most theories, as far as that is concerned most science, assumes rational behavior (behavior subject to predictable rational analysis). There is lots of evidence now for irrational economic behavior. It is quite hard, though not impossible, to model irrational behavior.

[pokerfan]

9. Sagan once said...

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." ~Carl Sagan

Economics has been called the http://www.economicshelp.org/essays/the_dismal_science.html">dismal science.

It is debatable whether economics should actually be defined as being a science. A science like Maths or Physics usually gets its satisfaction from proving something to be irrevocably true. Solve a complex equation and QED that’s the answer, there’s no argument. Economics on the other hand will rarely give us a simple answer. Ask five economists a question and the joke goes you’ll get 6 different answers.

[Johonny]

10. No one is a large statement

very few scientists is more like it. You find a few practicing scientists that believe in things like scientific creationism or disbelieve global warming or believe in hydrinos or magnecules etc. In general these people contribute in a field outside their belief and contribute very little "evidence" for their actual beliefs. But they exist :)

In general the science moves on but scientists are people too and like ordinary people sometimes they can't move on. Thus some economists cling to fail economic models as some climate scientists cling to very old or simplistic climate models that are more in line with their beliefs. Trust science, but distrust scientist :)

[Curmudgeoness]

11. I am not sure that scientists abandon false theories as readily

as you think. It often takes years and years of tests and evidence before they move on.

But with that said, my opinion of economists as scientists: They are as much scientists as voodoo doctors and astrologists.

[Gabi Hayes]

13. There was a young lady named Bright,

Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way,
And returned on the previous night!