Q24. Economists and Science

[tuf58975]

Can someone explain why D is right? I originally chose A but still did not understand why A is wrong. Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

CONCLUSION:
Economics shouldn't be thought of as a science.

Okay, so we're debating whether Econ should be thought of as a science.
Did we define any laws that say "to be thought of as a science, ____ must be the case?"

We did.

By definition, sciences are non-normative. They don't prescribe.
The author says that "economists play a prescriptive role in society".

So the author is thinking, "If economists play a prescriptive role, then economics is normative, thus economics is not a science."

The problem is we don't have to buy into that first assumption:
"If economists play a prescriptive role, then economics is normative."

Maybe the science of economics is neutral, detached, descriptive, but economists can still offer their opinion in a normative way.

Math is certainly neutral, detached, and descriptive, but I could still ask a mathematician to give me some normative advice ("how big a percentage of my income should my mortgage be?")

The correct answer (D), gets to the heart of the shift from "because ECONOMISTS play a prescriptive role, ECONOMICS is a prescriptive discipline."

==== wrong answers =====
(A) This is a backwards answer. The author treats separate and distinct aspects of a discipline (whether it is non-normative vs. whether some of its practitioners are) as though they are closely related.

(B) This is a famous flaw people call Attacking the Person (or Ad Hominem). The author addresses the merits of the claim, by defining a requirement of "sciences" and then attempting to illustrate that economics fails that requirement.

(C) The author isn't insisting on a change in terminology. She is arguing against many professional economists who think we SHOULD call econ a science, but there is no change to some established terminology here. Our author is just assessing whether a term applies.

(E) What?