3 ms·

I think Economics is a fairly big outlier though. There's quite a good book by Economics Prof. Steve Keen called Debunking Economics, which is very accessible a

I think Economics is a fairly big outlier though. There's quite a good book by Economics Prof. Steve Keen called Debunking Economics, which is very accessible and goes over how most of the core tenants of neoclassical (mainstream) economics have been known to be flawed for decades, yet it's all still taught as fact. It's not a scholarly work, but references a great deal of scholarly work. It's fascinating to read and imagine how the profession has not been reformed in light of these known flaws (and the fact of the huge failure of mainstream Economics to predict the Great Recession). There is some hope though in some student movements that are starting to challenge how economics is taught (like Rethinking Economics and the Post-crash Economics Society). It may be that like some times in science, the profession will advance "one funeral at a time" as the new generation comes in.

rvern 10y ago
Neoclassical synthesis is still taught because, even though it's flawed, we have nothing better. Economists know that the assumptions behind neoclassical models aren't always fulfilled. All science is always done with models and we just use the best models we have, while taking into account their limitations. People don't usually object to this in other fields, but in economics they do because they have stronger Opinions about economics than the natural sciences and the models sometimes disagree with their Opinions. If they had a better model, economists would welcome it, I'm sure, but they don't and they still want to keep their Opinions, so instead they blabber about how the current models are flawed. They're not wrong. The Marxian school is a dead end and the Austrian school lacks scientific rigor. There's no point in teaching along with neoclassical synthesis things that are less rigorous than neoclassical synthesis while also having less breadth. If they were taught, the situation would be similar to what it is in psychology, where dubious approaches like psychoanalysis are taught alongside cognitive psychology.
- damptowel 10y ago
  This is a commonly held belief, but it's wrong, the dominant economic models in use today are neither rigorous (internally inconsistent, extremely poor empirical verification, major aggregation errors, lack of essential inputs) nor representative of an economy (a dynamic system, not an extremely stylized static equillibrium model). You should read Keen's book, it's point is not that those assumptions don't always hold, it's that they under _any_ real world circumstance will invalidate themselves.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60__fqFjLMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60__fqFjLMw

rvern 10y ago

Neoclassical synthesis is still taught because, even though it's flawed, we have nothing better. Economists know that the assumptions behind neoclassical models aren't always fulfilled. All science is always done with models and we just use the best models we have, while taking into account their limitations. People don't usually object to this in other fields, but in economics they do because they have stronger Opinions about economics than the natural sciences and the models sometimes disagree with their Opinions. If they had a better model, economists would welcome it, I'm sure, but they don't and they still want to keep their Opinions, so instead they blabber about how the current models are flawed. They're not wrong. The Marxian school is a dead end and the Austrian school lacks scientific rigor. There's no point in teaching along with neoclassical synthesis things that are less rigorous than neoclassical synthesis while also having less breadth. If they were taught, the situation would be similar to what it is in psychology, where dubious approaches like psychoanalysis are taught alongside cognitive psychology.

damptowel 10y ago
This is a commonly held belief, but it's wrong, the dominant economic models in use today are neither rigorous (internally inconsistent, extremely poor empirical verification, major aggregation errors, lack of essential inputs) nor representative of an economy (a dynamic system, not an extremely stylized static equillibrium model). You should read Keen's book, it's point is not that those assumptions don't always hold, it's that they under _any_ real world circumstance will invalidate themselves.
digi_owl 10y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60__fqFjLMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60__fqFjLMw