Comte de Sats Germain on Nostr: I'd agree. But most economists probably wouldn't. IMO its psychology but empirical. ...

I'd agree. But most economists probably wouldn't. IMO its psychology but empirical. Psych is valuable in it's own way, but considering psych a science and econ not is backwards. Psych can produce empirical data, but its propositions are entirely independent of the data ; econ is 100% data driven, and no proposition of any sort is taken seriously without supporting data. Basically, econ is, IMO, what you get if you do sociology/anthropology/psychology the "right" way - meaning, no voodoo, no entertaining but fantastical leaps born of pure fancy, which anthropology in particular specializes in. Certainly archaeology... The king of the sciences of bullshit.