Economists-twisting our reality?

Does the following quote highlight the main difference between economics and other sciences, or does it overgeneralise the assumptions of economists? Does it contain a telling criticism of the way economists distort our world to fit their theories, or a flawed analysis of how economists operate and the power they have?
Essentially, do economists have the power and the motive to play games with international markets, and therefore with the way we live?

“No other discipline attempts to make the world act as
it thinks the world should act. But of course what Homo
sapiens does and what Homo oeconomicus should do are
often quite different. That, however, does not make the
basic model wrong, as it would in every other discipline.
It just means that actions must be taken to bend Homo
sapiens into conformity with Homo oeconomicus. So,
instead of adjusting theory to reality, reality is
adjusted to theory.”
– Lester Thurow

England, it’s a strikingly good observation about religious pseudo-science, but a rather poor characterization of economics. Economics isn’t a tool uses to change the world, it’s a tool to understand what already happens. It’s very much like Physics. The discipline attempts to observe and find patterns in our world, and then express the patterns mathematically. Are they perfect? Of course not.

Do theories get floated which need alteration? Of course. The same is true in every science. When the world’s scientists were attempting to find the speed of light, the Newtonian physics model suddently didn’t work…that didn’t mean that they scrapped the whole thing. They has to explain away some inconsistencies, and used the “ether.” After rigerous testing, that theory was found to be flawed, a new version was sought. Along came Einstein with special relativity, and suddenly we have a working model for the world. Suddenly we can predict the behavior of light on inertial frames, and predict time and mass distortion, and better understand the world. The theory isn’t perfect - it might well be flawed. That doesn’t mean that the physicist tries to, or can, alter the world around them to fit the theory. It means the theory is less than divine. The same is true of super-string theory. It might turn out to be a bunch of baloney, and if so many lifetimes have been wasted in working on it. That doesn’t mean that the physicist can alter the world to make it fit.

Do economists have the motive to play with international markets? Of course. Do they have the power? Only to the extent that we give it to them by following their advice as experts in their field. The physicist might predict that the new SUV on the market will crash and explode easily, and so you might say he has the power to stop it from being sold, but his power ends there.

virginia/south carolina…whatever u prefer. im glad to see u join us! at least someones reading my posts!!
I tend to agree with your view that economists merely try to understand the way our societies satisfy their demands, as opposed to manipulate society to fit their ideas of how it should work. however, i think it is interesting that almost every economics course in any capitalist country ensures that students understand that the laissez-fairre market is the one which ensures the lowest prices for those in demand. In practice, of course economics is not that simple, and removing all govt regulation is probably not the ideal economic system. Im sure you are aware of this. howver, many less aware students would not be, and many economics students will finish their courses with an ideal of a capitalist system whcih they can then attempt to implement, or use to justify other behaviors. How many time shave you heard those to the right of the political spectrum justify a drop in pensions or unemployment benefit by citing the benefits of a laissez fairre economic system.
Remember that many of the students of modern economics, will go on to positions of power in capitalist countries where economic models, which as you said yourself, are poor representations of reality, can be used to justify greed or other less commendable motives.
Also, your comparison to physics was perceptive and interesting, but there are some differences between the two fields which u neglected to consider.
you stated:
“The same is true of super-string theory. It might turn out to be a bunch of baloney, and if so many lifetimes have been wasted in working on it. That doesn’t mean that the physicist can alter the world to make it fit.”
Youre right. Physics is the study of natural phenomona, and as such physicists cannot alter the subject they are studying. they cannot change the speed of light to fit a slighltly inaccurate mathematical equation, or warp the laws of gravity. However, economics is a stusy based on human behavior. Humans are open to manipulation, and economists could, in theory, if they were in postions of enough power and sway, (for example complete control of the education and media systems) convince an entire population that less govt regulation is better for them because it will reduce prices, and prove it to them by showing them a supply and demand graph in a microecon textbook.
Hence, although you are probably right that economists dont have enough power, or indeed the motive to manipulate the worlds markets, they could, in theory, do so if they had both. Physicists however, will never be able to alter the laws of natural phenomona.

Well now you’re just getting into a different discussion altogether, that of perception versus reality. We can make it appear that the sweat of monkeys is what causes the earth to spin, and we can teach this to entire populaces, but it doesn’t make it true. Likewise, economists/politicians might teach an entire hemisphere that capitalism is evil and communism is king, and but that doesn’t make that true either. In my economics classes, we actually were never taught that capitalism is the best - it’s simply the one we most need to understand, since it’s about the only system left in the world. It’s also the basis for the other systems…the state of nature that other systems attempt to control or alter. But, were we taught that capitalism is the “best,” it would be for the same reason we’re taught that democracy is the “best” - it’s the system that has shown the most lasting success in the world (depending on how you define “success,” of course).

As for using science and pseudoscience to justify political and moral behavior, that’s been going on for thousands of years. For example, crusades in the name of the “science” of God, social darwinism as a reason for imperialism, discovery of genes leading to eugenics. That doesn’t make the science incorrect, it just means that the people themselves are misinterpreting the information or reaching for justification.