Physics might seem like the science of dreams. It 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. While it seems like an aspiration worth pursuing, it isn't always achievable. This is due to the limitations of the scientific method used, as well as the topic in question: human nature, which involves free will and emotions. As such, to conclude with a truism: be yourself, everyone (physics) 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 external variables. An astronomer can close the solar system as if it were an aquarium: celestial mechanics requires only mass, position and velocity for a complete description of the phenomena. On the other hand, social phenomena are infinitely ramified. It is impossible to identify all variables involved in, for example, stock market price fluctuations and clearly rule them out. Furthermore, no two people or social contexts are the same. So, repeated experimentation is not truly effective. An obvious counterclaim would be the main (but also magical) word – ceteris paribus. For example, we can predict that if the price of beef increases – ceteris paribus – the quantity of beef demanded by buyers will decrease. Determinants such as the change in the price of substitute goods, the 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Meanwhile, in physics, Galileo's laws of falling bodies seem to be the essence of simplicity, but it is because they ignore the friction and resistance of bodies the air. If they didn't, they would have to take into account the shape and material of the falling body and would be infinitely complex. However, no one has tested the two concepts in a truly closed experimental system. But both have still seen significant real-world applications. The law of supply and demand naturally makes sense, almost like a syllogism and does not require an exhaustive scientific methodology. Meanwhile, we never had a vacuum to test Galileo's laws of falling bodies; Despite this, it still forms the foundation of the laws of motion. Therefore, good theories do not always require perfect models with abundant empirical evidence. We know the limitations of economics: the constants of physics and natural science tend to hold throughout the universe, while economics cannot compare its assumptions with these immutable aspects of the physical world. In macro, for example, “Events constantly take macro people by surprise.” So, to use a metaphor from Ronald Giere; Theories are like maps: the test is not in arbitrarily checking random points but in 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, due to the many variables in the interaction between politics and power, it is not possible and, above all, it would be useless. Good mathematics is useless against the greed of rulers (which, although imprecise, is the general cause of poverty in many countries). How can the scientific method be used to cure the moral corruption, nestled in theeconomic and political institutions, as well as in the exploitative colonial past, which creates oppressive regimes and terribly 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 committees and an overvalued exchange rate. These economic policies were adopted not because there was a lack of better economic ideas to pursue, but because it was good policy. It allowed Busia to transfer resources to politically powerful groups, for example in urban areas, that needed to be contained. 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 common sense, we will find that the restrictions on the power and independence of economics and politics would be great. We don't always need the scientific method supported by empirical evidence to understand that if these politicians had a moral code, things would probably be better. By asking your intuition and consulting the big story it naturally becomes evident that having inclusive political institutions guarantees human rights. After all, at the heart of economics, it is a social science. While it seems like simple logic, the pursuit of “scientism” ignores how the economy is socially constructed and human beings are dynamic and complex. It is said that "nothing in physics chooses", particles live their existence through 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 by will, but we have seen Keynes's (1936) “animal spirits” challenge patterns of prices and behavior. Both the 1990s and 1930s depressions in the United States saw such things as a sudden collapse in confidence, triggering banking crises, as well as persistent monetary illusions that people would rather accept unemployment than pay cuts. A change in economic context and ideology will change people's behavior. This is enough to modify existing templates. It's true that some things can be modeled. It can be argued that “irrational behaviors are just anomalies,” in response to exceptions to laws and patterns. If not, what have economists been working on for so long? Game theory, general equilibrium theory, macroeconomic models, and many other theories have offered groundbreaking discoveries in economics, and some have received Nobel Prizes. For all things, we should always consider the extent to which they can be applied. After all, we can never truly and predictably measure variables like “trust” that fall outside the jargon of physics. While numbers are useful, it is critical to keep their limitations in mind and observe 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. Taking this position has the power to fill the gaps of classical theories derived from a purely mathematical approach. Some economic problems such as the tragedy of the commons are not simply a matter of technical analysis. It draws on ideas of morality and what individuals want. With demerit goods, for example, you can graph negative externalities, such as carbon dioxide pollution, and show the size of the negative externalities that close after taxation. People don't like paying taxes: that's enough reasoning.