User:ClareParlett/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar Group 10/Evidence

This is for UCL BASc Approaches to Knowledge (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/basc/current/core/atk) Seminar Group 10. These content pages will be populated by student content October - December 2018.

Evidence
Is evidence essential to truth?/Does truth need evidence? (Yue) What if there are so many ways to interpret evidence, that it is impossible to evaluate its true meaning? (Elisa)

Economics as a Humanity
There are certain aspects that are included in a humanity according to McClay such as those which "have humanistic content and employ humanistic methods". The study of Microeconomics examines people's behaviour and how they are led to making decisions in economics, so these characteristics may support the claim that economics is a humanity according to McClay.

Economics as a Natural Science
In their New York Times article, Alex Rosenberg and Tyler Curtain argue that Economics can't be considered as a science as whilst in the natural sciences definitive results can be predicted through the use of science and maths, in Economics the predictions are much less stable. The main problem highlighted with the scientific methods of Economics is the inability to improve the predictive range and accuracy of the science - whilst the natural sciences have used similar models for extended periods of times they have gradually got more accurate results. The piece admits that there are certain similarities between the sciences and economics such as the use of particular models where ideal circumstances must be set, such as the use of frictionless planes in physics to the use of rational behaviour in consumers. The piece points to the wider problems of how to define a science, discussing Milton Friedman's thesis which argues that predictive power is the most important aspect of a science and also comments on the problem with economics resting in what the subject actually covers, even under idealised situations the mechanics studied still don't behave uniformly.

Evidence in Economics
In a recent economics lecture, the lecturer explained an economic theory, however his sentence ended with the claim that he does not believe in this widely known theory and that he has just published a literary piece that states and explores a counter-theory. After that, I have questioned the ways that evidence is acquired in the study of Economics, as it seems to be that not all theories are supported with enough evidence to verify and proof its validity. In addition to that, the question of how reliable such theories are, and whether the evidence that is being used to establish these theories is reliable, raises. The article analyses the meaning of economics being an "evidence-based" science. It relates the issue of evidence-based to other disciplines and it is being argued that it is a way to view it as the basis and origin of knowledge in many disciplines. Economics can be described as either a social science or a natural science, however in the social sciences, evidence is often acquired through anecdotal evidence or testimonial evidence which are both rather subjective, hence the findings may be considered as less reliable by one. If, however, economics is seen as a natural science, scientific evidence is being used to make assumptions. The author of the article claims that different types of evidence are required in order to call economics an "evidence-base" science. Evidence based claims are expected to be more objective due to the multidisciplinary nature of the acquisition of knowledge. One really interesting method that is being discussed is the use of a "complementary approach", which suggests that if evidence, which has been collected from different categories, proposes the same results, more accurate, valid and reliable conclusions are achieved. One issue that arises in the study of economics is that often the evidence that exists does correspond with the theory behind it most of the time, however a further link between evidence and real life is different to establish in Economics.

Sean Harkin, offers another take on the role of evidence in Economics writing an article for finance magazine World Finance. He argues that contrary to the natural sciences economics as a subject in its current state is entirely built upon abstract reasoning which is infrequently and improperly backed up with hard evidence. He argues that many of the theories present in economics at the moment are disputable and attacks the very base economic belief in humans acting in rational self-interest stating that it is not a comprehensive theory. Harkin argues that the economic discipline should move more towards hard evidence similar to the methodology of the natural sciences and argues that in doing so we will be able to finally explain contradicting theories in the field. The article also considers the fundamental differences between the social sciences and natural sciences as an argument against this new form of evidence based economics stating that it is possible that such methodology cannot be applied to the social sciences.