Re: The conflict at Notre Dame

[Colin Danby <danby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re:

> The only
> way we can do this is by developing better quantitative
> methods that are in accordance with our own theory and
> method, and make them and their results known through
> media closer to policy makers. Only then can we get the
> recognition we deserve.

This assumes that "recognition" is a simple function of the
quality of quantitative methods, and that PKers are not
recognized because of some lack of said methods.  I suggest
that mainstream objections about the quantitative content
of heterodox economics are generally made in bad faith
(among other things because, typically, they haven't read
any).  And as Bill Mitchell used to remind us, the poor
quality of much mainstream quant work seems no obstacle to
its publication.

By all means, let us develop better quantitative methods.
But let's do it because it's good social science, not in
the naive hope that a clever model or a really tight
statistical fit will suddenly make mainstreamers rush to
embrace us.  The tautological thinking (not to mention
the sheer, shameless philistinism) in the Note Dame case
is too obvious for comment.

Best, Colin