Re: interview with Paul Davidson in the EEJ

[Greg Ransom <gregbransom@xxxxxxxx>]

After reading David's interview with Paul Davidson,
it's hard for an outsider not to conclude that
the institutions and intellectual norms of the economics
profession are deeply pathological.  My own conclusion
for some time has been that the most important thing which
could happen to the economics guild is a sustained and
wide-ranging sociological & philosophical investigation by
a diverse team of social scientists & philosophers.  The
work of McCloskey, Klamer, Mirowski, Rosenberg & David himself
has, I believe, only scratched the surface of the pathology
of "science" which is modern economics.  What is needed is a
sustained & intregrated investigation by outsiders supported by
a well-endowed foundation or think-tank.  With a bit of
publicity, I think the economics profession would melt under
the pressure of the exposure of the deeply unscientific &
uncritical nature of the profession & its leading institutions
as these are currently constituted.

If nothing else, such a sustained project would let
the sincere university student or citizen have a more
honest sense of what modern economics today represents
-- something much less sound than the science taught elsewhere
in the colleges, and something largely dependent on an
indefensible party-line of group-think which can't be sustained
as under the light of critical attention.  Interestingly,
this conclusion is not too far different that that of some
Nobel Prize winners in economics, and it seems to be the
view most economists have of the work of at least a
good number of their credentialed fellow economists -- a
sign in itself that there is something deeply wrong with this
profession and this "science".

Greg Ransom
editor, The Friedrich Hayek Scholars Page
http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/hayek.html


David wrote:

>>In case any of you don't have access to the Eastern Economic Journal (If you
don't you should get it; or get your library to get it--it's one of the
most
interesting journals around, and they don't overcharge for it, even to
libraries.) here is the interview that Ric mentioned. Those of you who
are
nonspecialists in ecnomics should know that Paul is one of the very few
top
economists who spends time discussing issues with nonspecialists. His
role
on this list is emmense, and we all owe him an enormous debt of
gratitude,
even when he is unreasonable, which he sometimes is.  (Paul, you knew I
couldn't leave it too positive.)<<