So it sounds like you could never predict all the exact variables of any economic scenario, which is why ceteris paribus is used in most problems in class. We acknowledged that reality clearly isn't ceteris paribus though, since we cannot control everything. But in that case, do we just sit back and wait for some country to try to use an economic theory to see if it will work? If it did work, we could never rely on our circumstances to be the same or that it would work for us, so it seems like proving any economic theory useful would only be proving it in that exact place at that exact time. In that case, do we really just rely on certain places and times in history to see what we should and should not do with policy regarding economics, when it could work completely from us? I guess my overall question is if afterwards, looking back on the situations, we can tell what the correlations and causations are and are not to clearly enough to tell what economic theories work best?
The statement and question you wrote is one reason why many refer to economics as the dismal science. Why study it if you can never come to hard conclusions? To answer that question, yes, the good economists combine history and economics. Economics can help explain why certain historical events played out the way they did. Furthermore, history can also provide great examples of the laws of economics in motion. Even better, sometimes it seems like the laws of economics are somehow *seemingly* disobeyed. These events in particular are very interesting because if the laws of economics are truly laws, it should be impossible for them to be disobeyed, so therefore, there must be more to the story - the laws of economics are indeed laws.
For example, we do not say that a child jumping is defying the law of gravity, but that these is something else in play, say Newton's third law (every action [the child pushing down with their legs/feet] has an equal and opposite reaction [the child leaving the ground]) that lets the child go up. If you only knew the law of gravity, it would seem the child disproves a scientific law. Similarly, if you do not study economics, or the event that seemingly breaks and economic law, thoroughly, you can be led to believe that economics has nothing of value in predicting the outcome of particular events. Since I have dedicated a large portion of my life to this study, my actions demonstrate I believe there is much to gain in this field. Either that or I am coping.
For example, we do not say that a child jumping is defying the law of gravity, but that these is something else in play, say Newton's third law (every action [the child pushing down with their legs/feet] has an equal and opposite reaction [the child leaving the ground]) that lets the child go up. If you only knew the law of gravity, it would seem the child disproves a scientific law. Similarly, if you do not study economics, or the event that seemingly breaks and economic law, thoroughly, you can be led to believe that economics has nothing of value in predicting the outcome of particular events. Since I have dedicated a large portion of my life to this study, my actions demonstrate I believe there is much to gain in this field. Either that or I am coping.