Good comment - I remember while studying economics (a subject I have always enjoyed) I got into an argument with some fellow students who felt that it was too &#x27;fluffy&#x27; and &#x27;not enough meat&#x27;.  They wanted to do equations and get hard answers.<p>The truth is that Economics is the study of choices in a world of limited resources, and that the process is exactly as you have said : observing initial conditions, material decisions and subsequent outcomes.   It is, as laid out by Adam Smith, also dependent on certain initial inputs (theory of moral sentiments) which produce rational actors.<p>The amusing thing for me is that, despite repeated tests and outcomes, people continue to think that they can wander off the reservation and get better outcomes with the same humans by trying different things to try and control the flow of limited resources.  The results are rarely pretty, but the siren song of being able to improve things and be hailed a hero draws people into thinking the rules do not apply.<p>Krugman wandered off the reservation a while back and hasn&#x27;t been worth reading since at least 2008.<p>The point is, you don&#x27;t have to agree on economic policies to agree that it&#x27;s not a hard science and shouldn&#x27;t be treated as such.