by Summary:
I stand with Paul Feyerabend in taking an "anarchistic" approach to the philosophy of science. There is no "scientific method" that is the final arbiter of doing science. Or, as Mao famously said but did not follow through one, "Let a hundred flowers bloom." The cream will rise to the top. Science is what scientists do, and free inquiry requires that they be free to pursue their curiosity. Exploration of options and alternatives is basic to evolutionary theory. Those that don't adapt to changing conditions go the way of the dodo. The actual problem is that conventional economics has become a cult that excludes (Marxism) or marginalizes (heterodox economics) the unconventional on the grounds that "the methodological debate" is over. The field is stuck. This situation has been
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: economics profession
This could be interesting, too:
I stand with Paul Feyerabend in taking an "anarchistic" approach to the philosophy of science. There is no "scientific method" that is the final arbiter of doing science. Or, as Mao famously said but did not follow through one, "Let a hundred flowers bloom." The cream will rise to the top. Science is what scientists do, and free inquiry requires that they be free to pursue their curiosity. Exploration of options and alternatives is basic to evolutionary theory. Those that don't adapt to changing conditions go the way of the dodo. The actual problem is that conventional economics has become a cult that excludes (Marxism) or marginalizes (heterodox economics) the unconventional on the grounds that "the methodological debate" is over. The field is stuck. This situation has been
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: economics profession
This could be interesting, too:
Mike Norman writes REVIEW ESSAY–The Reformation in Economics: A Deconstruction and Reconstruction of Economic Theory by Philip Pilkington Marc Morgan
Mike Norman writes Three Economic Ideas Threatening to Defenders of the Status Quo — Peter Cooper
Mike Norman writes Bill Mitchell — Be careful of what parades as academic research (Uber)
Mike Norman writes Political Economy? — Peter Radford
I stand with Paul Feyerabend in taking an "anarchistic" approach to the philosophy of science. There is no "scientific method" that is the final arbiter of doing science. Or, as Mao famously said but did not follow through one, "Let a hundred flowers bloom." The cream will rise to the top.
Science is what scientists do, and free inquiry requires that they be free to pursue their curiosity. Exploration of options and alternatives is basic to evolutionary theory. Those that don't adapt to changing conditions go the way of the dodo.
The actual problem is that conventional economics has become a cult that excludes (Marxism) or marginalizes (heterodox economics) the unconventional on the grounds that "the methodological debate" is over. The field is stuck.
This situation has been recognized and criticized as the dogmatic approach to knowledge that was supposedly supplanted by the rise of science. It is anti-scientific. But it persists owing not to results but to power.
The problem arises from equating "real science" with mathematical formalism and Platonic intuitionism as the basis for model construction.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach as one approach, especially if models are compared with what is modeled using adequate data.
Problems arise, however, when it is taken to be the only "really scientific" approach, especially when models are not adequately substantiated with evidence, or are contradicted by events.
The field needs to be opened up. This requires some people giving up their considerable investment in the status quo.
The solution is similar to that of economic policy. Inequality can only be addressed by addressing rents that lead to it and that involves addressing maldistribution. This disrupts the status quo and powerful interest oppose it.
The fault also lies with universities that support the dogmatic approach rather than a scientific inquiry.
These are political issues involving power relationships that stand in the way of free inquiry, which is the basis of both science and liberalism.
However, there is also merit to the challenge of those who propose abandoning the conventional approach to show that another or other approaches are superior.
That is a valid response. Let the debate begin.
However, the debate actually began some time ago, and it was partially resolved. Business schools turned away from conventional economics toward the case study approach, since the practical results of economic modeling were insufficient for business purposes. So practical economics is being done under another roof.
Lars P. Syll’s Blog
Modern economics — an intellectual game without practical relevance
Lars P. Syll | Professor, Malmo University