system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Do you think economics as scientific disciple is a "positivist" science?

Meaning that you can create universal laws using scientific methods to describe our social world, in this case the economic system, which you can then "prove" by observing data.

Or do you think economics should be more concerned about the real world events, historical developments and our social world inherently having politics and economics intertwined, so that  observing only the "economy" in vacuum does not lead to anything that could be defined as a "universal law"?
gpt
Economics is by and large a positive and not a normative science.

That doesn't hinge on the ability to "create" universal laws. First of all, laws are discovered, not created, second of all, there are plenty of sciences where "laws" don't play a big role at all. It's a question of whether the subject matter allows laws to be discovered or if that doesn't really fit in the first place. Economics at its core is about human behaviour and chances are that the idea of laws just doesn't really apply to that.

Being a positive science also doesn't mean you always have to look at the economy in a vacuum or that you don't consider "politics". Ultimately it depends on the focus of the question how much that does or doesn't matter, nevertheless there are plenty of economists where "politics" are in some way or another a big part of their work. Dealing with political frameworks, institutions, etc. is not the same as acting in line with any sort of political belief.