Physics may seem like the science of dreams. He speaks the language of mathematics – so precise, so logical and so absolute. It is part of the foundation of other natural sciences. This is what makes physics unique. Although this seems like an aspiration worth pursuing, it is not always achievable. This is due to the limitations of the scientific method used, as well as the subject matter: human nature, which involves free will and emotions. As such, to end with a truism: be yourself, everyone (the physical) is already taken. This highlights the issue of the scientific method. The natural scientist, it is argued, can experiment by isolating what his hypothesis applies to so that his predictions are not upset by outside variables. An astronomer can close the solar system as if it were an aquarium: celestial mechanics requires only mass, location and speed for a complete description of phenomena. On the other hand, social phenomena are infinitely ramified. It is impossible to identify all the variables involved in, for example, stock price fluctuations and separate them clearly. Furthermore, no two people or two social contexts are the same. So, repeated experiments are not really effective. An obvious counterclaim would be the main (but also magic) word – ceteris paribus. For example, we can predict that if the price of beef increases – all else equal – the quantity of beef demanded by buyers will decrease. Determinants such as a change in the price of substitute goods, a change in the level of risk aversion among buyers and many others can be ignored if we simply study the relationship between two variables. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Meanwhile, in physics, Galileo's laws of falling bodies seem to be the essence of simplicity, but that's because they don't take into account the friction and resistance of body. the air. If they didn't, they would have to take into account the shape and material of the falling body and be infinitely complex. However, no one has tested both concepts in a truly closed experimental system. But both have yet to see significant real-world applications. Law of supply and demand this naturally makes sense, almost like a syllogism and does not require an overall scientific methodology. Meanwhile, we never really had a vacuum to test Galileo's laws of falling bodies; despite this, it still constitutes the basis of the laws of movement. Thus, good theories do not always need perfect models with abundant empirical evidence. We know the limits of economics: the constants of physics and natural science tend to apply throughout the universe, while economics cannot compare its assumptions to these immutable aspects of the physical world. In macro for example, “events constantly surprise macro people”. So, to use a Ronald Giere metaphor; Theories are like maps: the test is not about arbitrarily checking random points but about whether people find it useful to get somewhere. We should not be afraid of storytelling and use qualitative approaches. This is relevant to development economics. If an empirical approach were taken, most economic problems would be merely technical. However, this is not possible due to the many variables related to the interactionof politics and power, and above all, it would be useless. Good mathematics is useless in the face of executive greed (which, although imprecise, is the general cause of poverty in many countries). How can we use the scientific method to heal the moral corruption, hidden in economic and political institutions, as well as in the exploitative colonial past, which creates oppressive regimes and woefully inefficient economies? An example is the experience of Ghana's Prime Minister, Kofia Busia, in 1971. After coming to power in 1969, he pursued "unsustainable expansionist economic policies and maintained various price controls through marketing boards and an overvalued exchange rate. These economic policies were adopted not because there was a lack of better economic ideas to pursue, but because they were good policy. This allowed Busia to transfer resources to politically powerful groups, for example in urban areas, who needed to remain content. In cases like these, it is best to consult historians or politicians to identify the root causes and prevent history from repeating itself. In the right direction, we will find that restrictions on power and economic and political independence would be significant. We don't always need the scientific method backed by empirical evidence to understand that if these politicians had a moral code, things would probably be better. By questioning your intuition and consulting history, it is naturally evident that having inclusive political institutions guaranteeing human rights. After all, economics is at the heart of a social science. Although this seems like simple logic, the pursuit of “scientism” ignores how the economy is socially constructed and how humans are dynamic and complex. It is said that “nothing in physics chooses”, particles exist by mechanical causality. Yet we are not particles adhering to immutable laws; free will and emotions allow us to make choices and behave in irrational and unpredictable ways. We cannot change the speed of light with our will, but we have seen Keynes's (1936) “animal spirits” challenge models of price and behavior. In the United States, the depression of the 1890s and 1930s was marked by a sudden collapse of confidence, triggering banking crises, as well as persistent monetary illusions whereby people preferred to accept unemployment rather than pay cuts. A change in context and economic ideology will change people's behavior. This is enough to modify existing templates. It is true that certain things can be modeled. It can be argued that “irrational behavior is just anomaly,” in response to exceptions to laws and patterns. Otherwise, what have economists been working on for so long? Game theory, general equilibrium theory, macroeconomic models and many other theories have brought breakthroughs in economics and some have received Nobel Prizes. In all things we must always think about the extent to which they can be applied. After all, we can never truly and predictably measure variables like “confidence” that fall outside the jargon of physics. While numbers are useful, it is essential to keep in mind their limitations and examine the interplay between emotions and politics. Our decisions are imbued with ethics and values. For this reason, we should not study people only as particles. Adopt this.