Microeconomics should be considered a science because it has a solid foundation of empirical evidence. Macroeconomics is less precise with weaker empirical evidence. Some people compares macroeconomics to astrology because experts in both fields sometimes ,but far from always, makes correct predictions of the future.
An empirical issue is a type of issue. In this type of issue, the solution can only be reached by doing experimentation.
Anthony Bopp (1983) proposed that kerosene, a low-quality fuel used in home heating, was a Giffen good. Schmuel Baruch and Yakar Kanai (2001) suggested that shochu, a Japanese distilled beverage, "might" be a Giffen good. In both cases, the authors offered supporting econometric evidence. However, the empirical evidence has been generally considered to be incomplete. In a 2005 article, Sasha Abramsky of The Nation conjectured that gasoline, in certain circumstances, may act as a Giffen good. However, no supporting evidence was offered, and evidence from the large increases in oil prices in 2008 would suggest that quantity demanded for gasoline did actually fall as a result of increased prices. Of course, the lack of evidence at the aggregate level does not rule out that the proposed goods may have been Giffen for certain groups of consumers---in particular for poor consumers. The great recession has raised the possibility that very safe financial assets (Treasuries, cash, gold) become Giffen goods in liquidity trap scenarios or during bad economic times. As investors fear lower returns in equities and other investments they minimize risk by purchasing more of a low return, higher price asset that is considered safer.
No, biased statements are not supported by evidence.
Evidence which is not sufficient to prove a contention to the standard required is inadequate.
i know that this is stupid but how do scientists get empirical evidence.
the scientists had empirical evidence waiting to be answered
An example of empirical evidence would be, reading a thermometer. No matter who observes it the thermometer still displays the same temperture.
Empirical evidence refers to information that is gained through observation, experience, or experimentation. It is data that is collected from direct observations or experiences, rather than through theoretical reasoning or speculation. Empirical evidence is considered valuable in scientific research and decision-making because it provides reliable and verifiable information.
The opposite of empirical evidence is anecdotal evidence. Empirical evidence is based on direct observation, experimentation, or measurement, while anecdotal evidence relies on personal stories or experiences. Anecdotal evidence is often considered less reliable than empirical evidence because it is subjective and can be influenced by biases or individual perspectives.
Empirical evidence is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, Εμπειρία.
The opposite of empirical evidence is anecdotal evidence, which is based on personal accounts or hearsay rather than systematic observation or experimentation.
dcdecdc
Empirical scientific evidence is the opposite of anecdotal evidence. Empirical scientific evidence is that evidence garnered through the use of strict "scientific method"; while anecdotal is usually based on opinion or personal, unprovable or unrepeatable experience. Example: UFO are believed to exist primarily because of anecdotal evidence rather than empirical evidence.
Empirical evidence is based on direct observation or experience rather than theory or logic. It is verifiable through experimentation or observation and can be used to support or refute hypotheses. Empirical evidence is often used in scientific research to make conclusions based on real-world data.
jews
true