Your opinion about economists.?

"But the headline-grabbing differences between the findings of these Nobel laureates are less significant than the profound agreement in their scientific approach to economic questions, which is characterized by formulating and testing precise hypotheses."

In other words, Chetty is saying it's not the quality of predictions and factual knowledge that economics has which should determine whether or not we designate it to be a science, but the kinds of methods used by economists that give economics its status as a science. But if you think about it, this is a pretty loose definition of what a science is. There is an enormous gulf between something like physics, which can predict complex phenomena to a very high degree of accuracy based on highly refined and tested theories, and economics, which can't predict anything to a precise degree.

I agree that economics is a science in the sense of it's methods - but so is psychology, sociology, political science, etc, and all these social sciences are in infantile stages of development relative to the hard sciences. This isn't to suggest that doing economics is useless - to the contrary. I study economics and I find it far more interesting than I would physics or chemistry. Its just that economists REALLY want to be able to put all their hard work to use and get involved in advising economic policy - but, frankly, the science is nowhere near developed enough to be able to be of much use in that regard.

Take the Reinhart and Rogoff debacle, for example, and the continual arguing over austerity policies by economists. The fact that economists disagree fundamentally over their evaluations of austerity doesn't mean that economics isn't a science - but it absolutely does mean that policy advice by economists should not be taken anywhere near as seriously as, say, a doctor's prescription. And the problem is, this is exactly why economists want to be able to claim 'scientific status' - it's not, as Raj Chetty would have it, because they want to ensure that everyone knows that economists adhere to the scientific method. No one cares about that. Politicians on both sides of the spectrum want economics to be scientific so they can say 'the latest economic research supports our decision to cut welfare spending, and you can't argue because this is science'. And we need to be fully aware that this is utter bullshit - in both directions. Economists simply don't know enough to be making very many bold statements about anything.

Yes economics is a science, but because of the "social" science aspect, it makes it more difficult than say geology. Economics is also relatively new, macroeconomics as a study is even newer, as the world (tech and otherwise) have only just developed to where we can observe the interconnectedness of global economies. When economics started in the 1700s, it was really just thinking about how to make factories more productive. Economics is constantly evolving as new information is being added on. This is why you see economists differ over some issues.

Not saying that there isn't a whole lot of information that they do agree on, because there is! I would say that most of the disagreements come when people try to "predict" future outcomes.

Business is not science, and it largely depends on one's experience, insight and intuition. Many so-called experts are excellent at throwing jargon and known facts, but very very few are able to predict accurately. That's why most of them are employees rather than employers.

You should really do your own homework.... You don't want the consequences that will come once the professors find out that you aren't doing your own work.