If there was no good way to do a falsifiable experiment in physics we wouldn't say "oh we have a lot of data though, so i guess we should just look at the correlations and assume causation in this case". The question would simply remain open, perhaps indefinitely
What do you think of astronomy? Science, or should we wait for the development of experimental astronomy (yes, I know a lot of it is based on experimentally based physics, but none of that gets tested at interstellar distances, objects the size of stars, etc)
What about Kepler, and Newton with his laws of gravitation? Science, or did it only become science once we had machinery to measure gravity?
I think economists can do science, but their subject is much harder/less anemable to the scientific method than e.g. physics. Because of that, their results are less spectacular then those of physicists (psychologists, similarly, have a harder time than physicists applying the scientific method)
Also, that is harder to discriminate between true and false theories makes it easier for 'crackpots' to make a living in those fields.
What do you think of astronomy? Science, or should we wait for the development of experimental astronomy (yes, I know a lot of it is based on experimentally based physics, but none of that gets tested at interstellar distances, objects the size of stars, etc)
What about Kepler, and Newton with his laws of gravitation? Science, or did it only become science once we had machinery to measure gravity?
I think economists can do science, but their subject is much harder/less anemable to the scientific method than e.g. physics. Because of that, their results are less spectacular then those of physicists (psychologists, similarly, have a harder time than physicists applying the scientific method)
Also, that is harder to discriminate between true and false theories makes it easier for 'crackpots' to make a living in those fields.