What is science?

[Ryuuko]

Logic is defined as being true.

[unoduetre]

I just don't add the "(very very very very very very… probably)" in front of true because it's annoying. But I can if you want to be precise.

[unoduetre]

You do realize how many different scientific dictionaries there are?

Yes, and they agree with each other.

[Ryuuko]

Yes, and they agree with each other.

I wish, college would be easier if they did.

I use to believe they all did, and 99.9% of them do.

But unfortunately there are execptions that gives me heartburn.

[unoduetre]

I wish, college would be easier if they did.

Do you have an example of an disagreement between scietific dictionaries? I'm curious about it.

[Ryuuko]

Do you have an example of an disagreement between scietific dictionaries? I'm curious about it.

Economics

Many definitions differ, but perhaps you aren't including social science, but it is still science.

[unoduetre]

Logic is defined as being true.

Not really. Logic is defined by providing all of the following:
1) The definition of what is a well-formed formula.
2) The rules of inference.

[Ryuuko]

The study of science is inherently logical.

[unoduetre]

Economics

Economics isn't science, it's social science (which is not the same as science, despite having the word science in it).

The standards of social sciences are often much lower than sciences, so there is a lot of crap there.

I fully agree with you that there are probably a lot of things which are not satisfactorily justified in economics. Economics often do not really follow the scientific method.

[Ryuuko]

So you aren't considering social science as a science at all despite that the world at large does?

[unoduetre]

Well, it depends on the precise definition. I can use the one which includes it, but in this case there is still a distinction between hard and soft sciences.

Economics is not a hard science, which means the standards are lower and there is more crap.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science (I might provide a better source later, but it might take some time)

Precise definitions vary,[4] but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, cumulativeness, replicability, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method.[2][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] A closely related idea (originating in the nineteenth century with Auguste Comte) is that scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard to soft on the basis of factors such as rigor, "development", and whether they are basic or applied.[4][12]

You might want to read about the replication crisis in social sciences (including economics) as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

[unoduetre]

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicati ... _economics

A 2016 study in the journal Science found that one-third of 18 experimental studies from two top-tier economics journals (American Economic Review and the Quarterly Journal of Economics) failed to successfully replicate.

[Ryuuko]

I'll take a read up on those.

Most of the sciences I've studied are Social Sciences

[Ryuuko]

That and computer science but perhaps you don't consider that science either.

Even though that definitely follows logic.

[unoduetre]

Yeah. There are many problems with social sciences but the situation is fortunately different for hard sciences.

It might be a good read about the replication crisis in social sciences. Basically, many of the things that social scientists believed turned out to be unjustified because of the methodological issues and the lack of rigour in applying the proper scientific method.