The global financial crisis has not left economists in good stead. The profession has been criticized not only for failing to prevent and anticipate the disaster, but also for its apparent inability to offer clear solutions even after the event. These criticisms are by no means unwarranted, but they do merit a thorough reflection because they reveal an erroneous conception of Economics as a field of knowledge.

Contrary to the idea that emerges from several of the reproaches raised, Economics is not an exact science. Nor is it a "hard science" in the style of Chemistry or Physics. However, people wish it were. After all, we humans find it easier to think in terms of black and white (certainties) than of shifting shades of gray (uncertainties), which leads us to embrace, with little or no critical spirit, over-simplified explanations of the phenomena we observe, including economic ones. Not to mention the almost inevitable temptation to believe that everything that happens to us is or should be controllable; it would be enough to know the causes. Of course, economists have contributed to creating this mistaken vision of their discipline, with the arrogant speech of some of them or with the way in which mathematical techniques more typical of physics have generated the illusion of an unattainable precision in the social sciences. This has done a disservice to Economics and to society as a whole.

As is the case with psychology or sociology, the object of analysis of Economics is constituted by complex and confusing human phenomena, in which there are interactions of a multitude of variables whose individual effects are difficult to disentangle. While the "hard sciences" study predictable phenomena, for which necessary and sufficient causes can be established in the form of laws, Economics deals with phenomena of a probabilistic nature, difficult to predict, where the causes are often neither necessary nor sufficient. For example, an increase in tax rates may increase, reduce or not change tax revenue. These difficulties, which in principle entail an obvious disadvantage, actually represent an immense opportunity and a great responsibility for Economics. Indeed, economists can and must contribute to building a better world. Firstly, because of the content of discipline, so closely linked to the welfare of society and individuals. But also because of the methodological rigor inherent to the economist's approach to the study of reality.

In our daily lives, we all face situations characterized by a lack of clear and sufficient information. We give opinions and make decisions based on theories and convictions built on incomplete data and biased information. And we do so without being aware of the shortcomings of our cognitive skills, so much so that, to paraphrase degree scroll in Spanish from Thomas Gilovich's excellent book, we end up "convinced but wrong".

In their scientific work, economists also face complex realities, partial evidence, non-representative observations, inconsistent data and cognitive limitations (no study supports that economists are smarter than others). However, they have the advantage that, at least as a profession, they are aware of the intellectual danger that all this represents, which has led them to design solid methodological defenses, such as testing different explanations of the same phenomenon or assigning different levels of confidence to the conclusions obtained from some data. They are thus in a privileged position from which to contribute to the training of a more educated, critical and free society. Because, transferred to the everyday life of the citizen, the scientific approach of the economist is embodied in the mental habits that make possible a more critical and objective vision of reality and, therefore, less susceptible to deception. May many economists strive to promote and extend this way of looking at the world.