When you construct a building, jet airplane, automobile, etc. consensus is key to ensuring the item under development will perform as demanded and expected. It's a good thing when engineers agree on design and calculations because you are dealing with a hard science. The item needs to be designed and build to a minimum set of standards or failure is assured. This is not necessarily true in the social sciences, such as economics, politics, and finance. The so-called "soft" sciences are subject to opinion. Two different political scientists may look at the same data, speech or what have you and come up with a different interpretation. One might think the speaker is the second coming of Jesus. Another might think the message comes from the devil incarnate. The analysis will have more to do with their political predisposition (liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, democrat, republican, etc.) than cold hard analysis. In our view, it is nearly impossible to separate opinion from fact.
The same is often true with other social sciences such as economics and finance. If you are a disciple of the Keynesian school of economics, you look at the economy through that lens. If you are a monetarist, collectivist or libertarian, you do the same. One would think that a discipline with such a rich field of PhDs, we would know a great deal about the best way to organize an economy. But, economists are like baseball players. If their batting average is 300, they are considered pretty good, and so it is with economists. Those that are able to make economic predictions that are accurate with respect to timing, direction, and magnitude are right 30% of the time, sit at the top of their field. Just think what a big city would look like if construction engineers were wrong 70% of the time.
