by Is economic consensus a good thing? No, it is not — and here’s one strong reason why: The mere existence of consensus is not a useful guide. We should ask; Does a consensus have its origins and its ground in a rational and comprehensive appraisal of substantial evidence? Has the available evidence been open to vigorous challenge, and has it met each challenge? … A consensus that lacks these origins is of little consequence precisely because it lacks these origins. Knowing the current consensus is helpful in forecasting a vote; having substantial evidence is helpful in judging what is true. That something is standardly believed or assumed is not, by itself, a reason to believe or assume it. Error and confusion are standard conditions of the human mind.
Topics:
Lars Pålsson Syll considers the following as important: Theory of Science & Methodology
This could be interesting, too:
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Randomization and causal claims
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Race and sex as causes
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Randomization — a philosophical device gone astray
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Keynes on the importance of ‘causal spread’
Is economic consensus a good thing?
No, it is not — and here’s one strong reason why:
The mere existence of consensus is not a useful guide. We should ask; Does a consensus have its origins and its ground in a rational and comprehensive appraisal of substantial evidence? Has the available evidence been open to vigorous challenge, and has it met each challenge? … A consensus that lacks these origins is of little consequence precisely because it lacks these origins. Knowing the current consensus is helpful in forecasting a vote; having substantial evidence is helpful in judging what is true. That something is standardly believed or assumed is not, by itself, a reason to believe or assume it. Error and confusion are standard conditions of the human mind.