The document discusses the debate around whether econometrics can be considered a science. While econometrics follows the scientific method through its use of mathematics, statistics, and economic theory, questions remain around its ability to accurately predict economic outcomes and describe past economic behavior based on empirical evidence. Determining the empirical value and usefulness of econometrics involves examining evidence, but criteria for what constitutes "useful" can be subject to disagreement. Overall, the document argues that the question of whether econometrics is a science is less important than evaluating its results and degree of usefulness.

1. Economies are extremely complex systems with many variables, not to mention the fact that they
emerge from the interactions of complex beings. I agree that economies have certain underlying
principles, but I remain skeptical of the overall value of econometrics as a science.
A truly useful econometrics would be a valuable tool in predicting the future behavior of the
economy, particularly in predicting shocks like the recent financial crisis and Great Recession.
But it did not happen.
If econometrics can't predict the future, how do we know it even effectively describes the past?
What is the evidence that it has empirical value?
Clarification
I regret any confusion this may have caused, but let me clarify what I'm looking for here. I
regard this as an epistemological question. A better way to phrase it might be, "Can
econometrics conform to the scientific method?" or just "Is it science?"
This is, at least in theory, a specific, answerable question, even if it is, as Alecos Papadopoulos
noted in his answer, a matter of degree. (A view I share.)
This does not mean that specific examples of econometrics' successes and failures are not
relevant.
Solution
To (slightly) paraphrase the OP:
Economies(Human Bodies) are extremely complex systems with many variables, not to mention
the fact that they emerge from the interactions of complex beings(factors). I agree that
economies(human bodies) have certain underlying principles, but I remain skeptical of the
overall value of econometrics(medicine) as a science.
A truly useful econometrics(medical science) would be a valuable tool in predicting the future
behavior of the economy(human body), particularly in predicting shocks like the recent financial
crisis and Great Recession(severe illnesses or near death). But it did not happen.
If econometrics(medical science) can't predict the future, how do we know it even effectively
describes the past? What is the evidence that it has empirical value?
Comment:There is a Present that needs to be dealt with, just like with human bodies.
To (slightly) paraphrase Milton Friedman:
I don't care how I predict, as long as I predict adequately.
Comment: But what do we do when our predictions are not adequate ?
Econometrics is based on Mathematical Statistics on the one hand, and on the assumptions made
by Economic Theory on the other, which in turn are based on (imperfect) empirical observation,

2. and are then led to their logical conclusions. In other words, Econometrics uses rigorous
mathematics, induction, deduction and all the words dear to an epistemologist. Its
epistemological foundations are solid as a rock.
What hangs on the balance is the observed validity of its abstractions. So the question is not
whether Econometrics is a science, in the sense of whether it follows the scientific method or
not. It does, fully. The question is whether its results are useful.
But what are the criteria in order to determine "useful"? Is it just adequate predictions? That
would be a matter of disagreement between humans.
And is it a matter of a "yes/no" answer? Or is it a matter of degree to which it is useful? In
which case, we have to somehow measure this degree (after we have agreed on the criteria),
which brings us back to where we have to collect, analyze, assess, and debate the evidence.