Mostly due to the much lower costs of observation and experimentation, there is much more empirical academic research to back up the theories of economists than there is for the theories of physicists
Between that and hearing some of the acceptance speaches when the Riksbankens economic price in memorial of Nobel - "then the theory made sit up and pay attention, the thoey, the theory, the theory" (hardly ever is empirical data mentioned, in contrast with the physics and chemistry speaches) - I am suspecting that observation plays at most a minor part in formulating economical theories. At least in the neoliberal economics that dominate here. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
You know, in physics you can't get a Nobel prize for theory unless the theory has been confirmed experimentally. Which is why 't Hooft and Veltman had to wait nearly 30 years for theirs, for instance. The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buiter
Right.
NYTimes.com: Economists question dominance of free-market ideas (July 11, 2007)
"There is much too much ideology," said Alan Blinder, a professor at Princeton and a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Economics, he added, is "often a triumph of theory over fact." ... And free trade is not the only sacred subject, Blinder and other like-minded economists say. Most efforts to intervene in the markets - like setting a minimum wage, instituting industrial policy or regulating prices - are viewed askance by mainstream economists, as are analyses that do not rely on mathematical modeling. That attitude, the critics argue, has seriously harmed the discipline, suppressing original, creative thinking and distorting policy debates.
...
And free trade is not the only sacred subject, Blinder and other like-minded economists say. Most efforts to intervene in the markets - like setting a minimum wage, instituting industrial policy or regulating prices - are viewed askance by mainstream economists, as are analyses that do not rely on mathematical modeling.
That attitude, the critics argue, has seriously harmed the discipline, suppressing original, creative thinking and distorting policy debates.
Perfect information? Rational maximizers? Give me a break.
They're modeling a system of ideal fluids, and then looking to see how well the actual fluids match up to the ideal, instead of making any attempt to model or understand the reality.
