Message from @Draško
Discord ID: 675424227913891858
imo at least
if we can define history as a science then so can we economics
because there definitely exists an objectively optimal economic system
I wouldn't say history is a science
here we use the word science to describe it, but that's because we don't have the word "social study" in my language
but economics are a social study in that case
Alot of economists do follow the scientific method, which is something you can't do with history
We'd *maybe* call it a social science
Social studies is an elementary school topic
You cannot make controlled expirements for economics
i don't think science is only something that uses the scientific method
Which is why every economist disagrees with eachother
we've had science for much longer than we've had the scientific method
History cannot be regarded as absolutely true
We've had natural philosophy for a long time
which is what we call science now ... kinda
Uh, I mean, we've called things science before the scientific method, doesn't mean those meet our modern standards
Because history is written by the Victor
nothing can be regarded as absolutely true
Cringe
not cringe, literally true
I will beat up every analytical philosopher
Humans cannot understand objective facts so
Supply and Demand are not objective for example
Guess science doesn't real
History isn't always written by the victor
Depends on how much the victor pushes it
i'm sure that there's no objective truths being pushed in economics
@Siegfriedolin That just adds more chaos to the truth
but what is a fact is that there exists a potential best economic system
History isn't exactly neat
on what basis?
Because it would depend on what the national goal is
you're right
but i mean if we ignore morals and everything else
there's an objectivelly system that produces the most revenue when applied
At that point you're ignoring things
Which makes it not objective