Quote

I think that it's more important for an economist to be wise and sophisticated in scientific method than it is for a physicist because with controlled laboratory experiments possible, they practically guide you; you couldn't go astray. Whereas in economics, by dogma and misunderstanding, you can go very sadly astray.

Unfortunately, a lot of economists wanted to make their subject a science. So the more what you do resembles physics or chemistry, the more credible you become.

Why should we, however, in economics, have to plead ignorance of the sort of facts on which, in the case of a physical theory, a scientist would certainly be expected to give precise information?

Individual scientists cannot do much on their own. Heads of nations, corporates, and economic giants should recognise the criticality of it.

A theoretical grounding in agronomy must, therefore, include knowledge of biological laws.

The most useful thing about a principle is that it can always be sacrificed to expediency.

The whole intention of empirical economics is to force theory down to Earth.

Scientists tend to be unappreciated in the world at large, but you can hardly overstate the importance of the work they do.

Any econometrician who wants to see practical application of his science will be highly concerned with applications to economic planning at the national level.

To understand a science, it is necessary to know its history.