>So you lack references (without an ideological angle) that dismiss economics as a science -- which I asked after?
That's the best you could deduce from my comment?
For starters, given the main claim I made (that economics is not a science), and considering that whether is true or false is under question, the last thing one could logically ask for, regarding that, would be citations.
For who would make those?
Surely not physicists or mathematicians, etc. (since it's not their job). And surely not economists for it IS their job.
If my claim was true, economists admitting it would be like homeopathists or freudian psychoanalysts saying their fields are non-scientific. It just ain't gonna happen, or it will be marginal at best.
Ever more profoundly though, should we actually evaluate arguments, or only think pre-made thoughts coming to us by way of citations?
Because the latter is not scientific either -- one needs to evaluate citations too. And no, peer review is not infallible in that either (in case one thinks citations are some golden truth they can always accept because they're peer reviewed. In fact a good majority of papers even in hard sciences have been found in meta-studies to be reproducible and others plain wrong (the so-called reproducability crisis).
Assuming it it the same and worse in economics, which is not a hard science, already makes most of my point.
>> If my claim was true, economists admitting it would be like homeopathists or freudian psychoanalysts saying their fields are non-scientific. It just ain't gonna happen, or it will be marginal at best.
You do realize that is how the creationists argue about the biology academics? :-(
The problem is that to show something completely wrong (a year or two ago, you'd probably have linked to Picketty?) is a good way to make a career.
If you want to make a better argument for your position, go to post modernists or some other of the political sciences which generally have disappeared ten years later.
You could make a point, which I'd agree with, that your position is stronger than a conspiracy theory, there are too many precedents. But to dismiss a field of research, you really need better support.
>> should we actually evaluate arguments, or only think pre-made thoughts coming to us by way of citations?
Far outside our areas, that is a good heuristic...
About your references:
* Stephen A. Marglin seems to argue that the small society might be better. It is an interesting and important point. E.g. communism works OK in a village, but not for larger areas. Afaik, he don't present an alternative? (No one thinks the present democracy or capitalism is perfect, we just haven't found anything better.)
* "The Puzzle of Modern Economics: Science or Ideology?" got good reviews, but only by five readers. This seems to be a good overview:
"Is [economy] a.) dangerous mathematical formalism, b.) free market ideology, or c.) a vital guide to practical action? The correct answer, he concludes, is d.) all of the above"
Well, that isn't exactly controversial, is it? :-)
* Dani Rodrik seems to argue about when economy is a useful tool? It don't support that zero scientific content claim, either.
>You do realize that is how the creationists argue about the biology academics? :-(
You do realize that I don't care who else argues something in a particular way in another domain, as long as an argument is correct in another domain!
>The problem is that to show something completely wrong (a year or two ago, you'd probably have linked to Picketty?) is a good way to make a career.
Not really. To piss on your own field, is a good way to be considered a pariah, a conspiracy theorist, a nut job etc. Not many grants coming to the self-doubting economist, and policy advisor positions either.
>But to dismiss a field of research, you really need better support.
Like self-deprecating citations from practitioners in the field?
(Even if expecting that is illogical to begin with -- since economics is what puts food on their table --, you'd be surprised how many economists have written self-deprecating critiques about economics)
>> To piss on your own field, is a good way to be considered a pariah, a conspiracy theorist, a nut job etc. Not many grants coming to the self-doubting economist, and policy advisor positions either.
You can say the same for any research area.
>> Like self-deprecating citations from practitioners in the field?
You know yourself that you can find that for most fields. I know I've heard it for biochemistry (regarding over relying on computer modelling for evaluating molecules, a long time ago; I have no idea what people to do now).
It is normal and necessary introspection about what you are doing -- "Do we do the right things? Are we going in a good direction?"
That's the best you could deduce from my comment?
For starters, given the main claim I made (that economics is not a science), and considering that whether is true or false is under question, the last thing one could logically ask for, regarding that, would be citations.
For who would make those?
Surely not physicists or mathematicians, etc. (since it's not their job). And surely not economists for it IS their job.
If my claim was true, economists admitting it would be like homeopathists or freudian psychoanalysts saying their fields are non-scientific. It just ain't gonna happen, or it will be marginal at best.
Ever more profoundly though, should we actually evaluate arguments, or only think pre-made thoughts coming to us by way of citations?
Because the latter is not scientific either -- one needs to evaluate citations too. And no, peer review is not infallible in that either (in case one thinks citations are some golden truth they can always accept because they're peer reviewed. In fact a good majority of papers even in hard sciences have been found in meta-studies to be reproducible and others plain wrong (the so-called reproducability crisis).
Assuming it it the same and worse in economics, which is not a hard science, already makes most of my point.
That said, here are some sources:
https://www.amazon.com/Dismal-Science-Economist-Undermines-C... https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Rules-Rights-Wrongs-Science... https://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Modern-Economics-Science-Ideol... https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Mathematical-Politics-Dimin...