Economic is defined as a social science which study human behaviour as a relationship between ends and care?

Question

Economics is defined as a social science which study human behaviour as a relationship between ends and care needs with alternative. Justify the definition into eight environment with a good specificc example?

Answer 1

I define economics as study of nature, composition, laws, properties and classification of wealth. In simple words economics is chemistry of wealth. This definition makes economics a perfect material science and it becomes mirror image of chemistry. I leave it to you whether you follow me or not.

Answer 2

However, several people took issue with economics as a science -- and organized system of theories and facts capable of making verifiable predictions. I fall on the side of saying that it is, but I understand why people question it. It just seems fuzzy, not to mention it seems like any facts you could gather are heavily tainted by politics. On the other hand, it is not like several other fields that we classify as science aren't a little fuzzy too.

    So is economics a science? A science should make testable predictions about the world. Well, Friedman's most famous prediction was a pretty good one: he foresaw the possibility that high unemployment could accompany high inflation, a phenomenon better known as stagflation. That foretelling earned him the Nobel Memorial Prize, although Friedman's monetary theory is currently out of favor. Economists are performing all kinds of controlled experiments these days to test their assumptions about human behavior and the validity of poverty relief programs. And even if economics hasn't quite achieved testabillity yet, you could say the same for string theory. (Whether that does any favors to economics is your call.)

    Economic predictions are necessarily imprecise, given that people behave in ways that are unpredictable in detail. But climate models and reconstructions are uncertain, not to mention fraught with political baggage, as is economics, and yet we're prepared to grant climate research a measure of legitimacy. Part of the uncertainty of economic reasoning stems from the field's reliance on an abstract and often critiqued view of human decision-making: people like money, to oversimplify. Such abstraction in itself isn't bad. Scientists make progress where they can. Physicists are no strangers to making simplified assumptions if those simplifications tell them something fundamental about the subject they're studying. There's a joke about a dairy farmer who has asked a theoretical physicist for help getting his cows to produce more milk. After thinking about it, the physicist begins her answer, "ok first assume a spherical cow." If economists assume a rational utility-seeking agent, it's so they can say something concrete, relevant, and just maybe predictive.

I agree. I also like the comparison with clilmate science. Both economics and climate science involve large mathematical models of controversial validity. Both make prospective predictions, but predictions that by their nature can only be probabilistic. Both abstract from a system too complicated to not be simplified.