Monday , May 27 2024
Home / Video / Scientists’ Battle Against Paradigm Shift

Scientists’ Battle Against Paradigm Shift

Scientists' Battle Against Paradigm Shift

Steve Keen considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

Lars Pålsson Syll writes Post-real economics — a severe case of mathiness

New Economics Foundation writes Energy bills are falling – but the UK is still not protected from future price shocks

Lars Pålsson Syll writes Perché la trasformazione del capitalismo è necessaria

New Economics Foundation writes New Economics Podcast: Do we need to fight for the right to protest?

Scientists' Battle Against Paradigm Shift
Steve Keen
Steve Keen (born 28 March 1953) is an Australian-born, British-based economist and author. He considers himself a post-Keynesian, criticising neoclassical economics as inconsistent, unscientific and empirically unsupported. The major influences on Keen's thinking about economics include John Maynard Keynes, Karl Marx, Hyman Minsky, Piero Sraffa, Augusto Graziani, Joseph Alois Schumpeter, Thorstein Veblen, and François Quesnay.


  1. Very important discussion, science is really a closed religion sometimes, money and power rules most of the Critical thinking 😐

  2. "Paradigms are not corrigible by normal science at all. They are terminated by a relatively sudden and unstructured event like the gestalt switch.
    The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proofs."
    – Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962)

    "I have utterly broken down the whole structure of the current political economy.
    The professors will first ignore, then pooh-pooh, and then try to hold the shattered fragments of their theories together; but this book opens the discussion along lines on which they cannot make a successful defence."
    – Henry George on his book Progress and Poverty (1879)

  3. Popper is correct as far as I can tell with regards to truth—only through refutation, which seldom goes to completion by any means—though I think as you and your colleagues like Michael Hudson can articulate, major contributing factors are the social and psychological impacts of the individuals in question, and "it's all about the Benjamins [Franklin or $100 bills for US currency. I could use Q.E.2s for Commonwealth nations.]" Big Science and the emphasis on new materials production was backed by a combination of the petrol industry and then the nuclear weapons programs. When the latter were shuttered, nuclear particle research in the US effectively dried up—the SCSC was cancelled, mass investment shuttered, and corporate money went only to (primarily) private equity approved science with very little left over—and most if not all stuck behind vast paywalls, totally antithetical to that of 100 years prior.

  4. @MagnumInnominandum

    When the old generation of physicists, chemists, economists die, then you get a new physics, a new chemistry, but still will have the old economics because unlike physics and chemistry the general public thinks they understand economics. 😆😒🤔

  5. @davidwilkie9551

    A philosophical discussion of form following functional quantization, cause-effect fields interference consequences, and the alternative discrete Disproof Methodology of numerological relative-timing differentiates, it's all very hyperfluid squishy-ness, and perfectly thoughtless fundamentally.

    Or a rational and reasonable approach would say that the philosophical integration of self-defining temporal superposition relativism has to "stand alone" and be justified by relevant observation.
    Eg "Evidence of Absence is not Absence of Evidence" in the Eternity-now Aether Actuality Holographic Principle Perspective.

  6. @GhostOnTheHalfShell

    Sulloway’s Born to Rebel is an interesting essay on the topic to openness to experience. It’s. a good complement to discussions of institutional and academic inertia.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *