11/05/2009 | 10:30 am
Actually, yes, at least if you live in the United Kingdom.
(Hat tip: David Cushman)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
(Will not be published)
That is not what was ruled. Merely that it is a philosopical or political view.
Is economics a religion? The answer is yes if you live in US.
Ruling aside, it’s become a religion. Just deny it and see what response you get.
come on… i think you are confusing giving people the same protection against discrimination and persecution for their views regarding climate change as that given to religious beliefs to a theoretical/empirical framework based on science being the same as a belief framework based on faith. I understand you are using it as a rhetorical device same as in your book… but a little disingenous maybe?
The other way of looking at this is that Climate change deniers are such rabid, fundamentalist, faithmongers that the law has to make sure people that agree with global warming are protected for their openly held views…
I think you have it backwards. Isn’t it the deniers who are assaulted? If you do not beleive in the teachings of the Prophet Gore, your attacked.
No. Money is a religion. Economics, like climatology is a science. Money = religion. Climate change = religion. Economics = science. Climatology = science.
How exactly is economics a science? I’d love to get an answer on that one that just isn’t a bunch of ceteris paribus laws.
Economics is a social science. The “science” part of it is that it uses the same method as the rest of the sciences, but it is “social” in that it concerns human society. The big challenge is that it is very difficult (sometimes impossible) to set up perfectly controlled experiments in economics and other social sciences. But then again, it can be tough to set up perfect experiments in other sciences, too. If you are using the scientific method, it is a science.
Saying it is a “science” is not an attempt to claim perfect knowledge. The physical sciences are not perfect either. Anyone want to build a nuclear reactor with 19th Century science? And yet that imperfect knowledge of the 19th Century was still science. Real science if falsifiable, and it is expected to be continually improved. No real scientist thinks their knowledge is perfect.
It is when someone claims scientific knowledge, but then reacts to any criticism as combat or heresy that I wonder if they have left the scientific field, and entered the world of belief. You will find this very human trait in the debates about economics, climate change and the Cubs chance at another World Series.
@Art – What about protecting those who believe AGW is a fantasy?
Can they be protected from the hate speech associated with calling someone a “denier” by tying them to the Holocaust?
« Previous Post Newspapers Not as Dead as You Think
Next Post » Women for Polygamy
Freakonomics® is a registered service mark of Freakonomics, LLC. All contents © 2011 Freakonomics, LLC. All rights reserved.