system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Not a Math Question but a Question to Mathematicians.

As a student of economics (please don't stop reading out of disregard for my kind) I have heard that more 'sciency' people, specifically mathematicians or physicist, as they are so well educated in the mathematical realm, logic and reasoning (almost regardless of the domain), are criticising the logic in economics. I am not fully aware of what they mean, whether it is in the assumptions, in the reasoning for those assumptions ("on average true") on the reasoning methods in causalities or what, I guess just pick what you want to criticise.

I myself am now interested, with the intent of improving that, at least in the areas of my interest, what's so fundamentally wrong in our reasoning that is laughable to call that science. 

&#x200B;

I sure am not offended if you want to speak freely and honestly how you fell about economics, and I am not here to convince you that economics is a harder science that maths (actually had to giggle myself), I'm just here for some input to improve, at least my, economic reasoning.
gpt
Speaking as a mildly interested observer of economics from the Physics side of the fence, it just seems that there is a casual acceptance of a nearly total lack of predictive power in economic models as applied to real-world markets instead of idealised ones.

I mean sure, Physics has its spherical frictionless cows too, but just like our cousins in the Chemistry department, we've all come to agree on a pretty firm basis that we can *all agree on*. It's not like there's a different periodic table studied in Russia, China, Spain, or Brazil. Nope, everybody studies literally the exact same one. Ditto in Physics, where nobody disagrees on the basics of Newtonian mechanics, optics, or most such topics until you start to get into the bleeding edge of quantum gravity related stuff where there just isn't enough hard data to come to a definitive conclusion.

Meanwhile in Economics, there's the Austrian School vs Keynesian theories. Read one morning paper's Economics section, you get one prediction, read the other paper, you get a different prediction. A week later you find out they're both wrong.

Even outside of Physics, you'll find that most other sciences have their members in general agreement. Biologists, as a rule, accept evolution as true and revel in its incredible predictive power. Climatologists as a rule accept global warming as occurring and agree on the root cause of that particular slow-motion calamity.

But where is a politician to turn to for advice related to economic matters? If he were to turn his head to the left, he'd get an earful about making markets fair and lifting the minimum wage. Turn to the right, and it's all about supply-side trickle-down economics.

There just isn't any agreement, which means that *someone* is wrong.