>> 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 go

>> 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.