The limited scope of economics

A major problem of science is that scientists, including mainstream economists, limit their scope to their own disciplines only. They set up assumptions and build their arguments around these assumptions. They fail to see in the real world these assumptions are often not valid or the applicability is limited. Excluding ethical dimensions, for example, can make economic analysis 'manageable' and allows economists to claim themselves being 'scientific', and probably get a Nobel prize. But what happen if policymakers follow economists' advice without modifications? imposing social costs (Coarse theorem? hey, it fails when applying to intergenerational well-beings, and it would create political/ethical conflicts which is another types of social costs). So, when ecnomists say something as benefits > costs, they define the costs very narrowly. In the past it is ok, but now, the world has changed. Now people do not (or do not want to) define benefits and costs as a matter of utility only; collective well-beings are also included in their evaluation. Maximization of personal utility only is just an assumption that can no longer explain human behaviours very well. It is so obvious in psychology.

It also creates problems when economics is divorced from other disciplines like psychology. Human behaviours are not just determined by net utility gains, but right / wrong positions one holds. There is a range of motivations and the balance between utilitarian/deontological positions vary by individuals. Most importantly, it is misleading for economists to say everything is utility-based. It would be disastrous if policies are wholly based on such perspective. This is the way that our society operated in the past and present.

In fact, economics is not very objective indeed. For instance, as said, there are more human motivations than economists assume. Why do they make such assumptions? Some defend that non-utility motivations are just minority and can be ignored. Why should minority be ignored? When they do so, they are making a subjective judgement that it should be ignored. It 'should' be? No scientist is 100% objective. When economists and say social-conservationists evaluate the importance of an act, they simply weigh utilitarian and deontological positions to different degrees. They are doing the same thing but in different directions. Economics is just another school of philosophy, or as some ppl said, a kind of ethic (no 's'): utilitarian ethic. It is built upon an opposite position of deontology (utility vs. non-utility). It is not really a science from a theoretical point of view. (it does if being scientific means methodologically sophisticated, systemical & technical)

Mainstream economics is a closed intellectual system. Restricting to its own disciplinary boundary by claiming it as only a science is not really a strength but a source of those problems we face. Mainstream economists, it is time to open your eyes and listen to other disciplines. Pls do not take an incomplete understanding of reality as truth.