4 ms·

I doubt that. When you see evaluations like "plot", "neoliberal", "cultural-marxist" etc etc, you're dealing with a heavily ideology-loaded stuff, which is by d

I doubt that. When you see evaluations like "plot", "neoliberal", "cultural-marxist" etc etc, you're dealing with a heavily ideology-loaded stuff, which is by definition based on selectivity of facts (since the reality never follows ideology, reality can't be fit into ideology, and even soviet union had ideology only on paper).

jevgeni 7y ago
Could you please elaborate, because I’m sure am not alone in my complete failure to understand what you mean.
- ernst_klim 7y ago
  Neither social institution could adhere to any rigid ideology. A social institution, which does not correct basic assumptions and axioms lying in its foundation according to new knowledge and data, is doomed. Any widespread movement or social institution exists under the pressure of new facts, new social norms, hence any social institution is a flexible moving target. Only the heterodox, marginal movements can adhere to a rigid ideology. Mainstream science can't have one, only marginal branches can. Modern economics is not a "neoliberal" plot, of course, there is a strong scientific discussion, various competing theories within it, which are constantly being validated using statistics, and omitted, if proved wrong. Economics today, 25 years ago and 50 years ago vastly differs even in methodology, it's a very vigorous field. To say that this edifice is grounded in some ideology, one needs to omit all that constant scientific discussion, render empirically proved parts as ideological, axioms as "truths" etc. This kind of intellectual dishonesty could come only from a ideology-loaded follower of some heterodox (and usually pseudoscientific) theory, most likely grounded in some ideology (guessing from value judgments of op like "neoliberal" -- left one) rather than verified by empiric data.
  - jevgeni 7y ago
    Very well put! Thank you! I agree.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    I think the problem is many mistake mainstream political opinion for the prevailing scientific opinion. Most economists do not agree with the way our economy is being managed right now. The current political prevailing wind is definitely neoliberal. Of-course most people do not read economics papers.
  - morningseagulls 7y ago
    >Mainstream science can't have one, only marginal branches can. This is like native speakers of a language (say, English) asserting that only non-native speakers of their language have accents. You do, you just speak with an accent that's considered to be standard. >This kind of intellectual dishonesty could come only from a ideology-loaded follower of some heterodox (and usually pseudoscientific) theory, most likely grounded in some ideology (guessing from value judgments of op like "neoliberal" -- left one) rather than verified by empiric data. And mainstream (i.e. neoclassical) economics[0] does that, even in the face of mathematical reality, let alone empirical data.[1] The ignorance of the implications of the SMD theorem,[2] because it implies that the aggregation problem remains unsolved and the fundamental breakdown of the "law" of demand, was a profoundly anti-intellectual move. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21269064 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21269064 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenschein%E2%80%93Mantel%E2%80%93Debreu_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenschein%E2%80%93Mantel%E2...
    - ernst_klim 7y ago
      > The ignorance of the implications of the SMD theorem You are confusing different things together. Mainstream exists in a form it is not because Mainstream translates the Truth™, but because there are no better theories yet. Newton's mechanics is worse than Einstein theory in describing celestial bodies' movements, yet the former was better than anything until the latter appeared. I have a lot to argue against neoclassical economy, especially about its view of a person as a profit-driven (rational, as they call it) degenerate, or fondness of regressions in the mid of chaos. Yet it changes in the right direction, behavioral economics appeared, regressions are taken with a grain of salt now, rational choice is heavily criticized. The problem is that no heterodox theory provides both an axiomatic basis and empirical framework to compete mainstream economic science. What would you propose instead of Neoclassical economics? Nothing? It's not ignorance to accept theory that is not always true, it's stupidity to omit theory without having anything better, as Lakatos would say. As for ideology, I don't see such a thing. People in mainstream science vary from Joseph "We all need to follow Venezuela example" Stiglitz to post Austrians like William White.

jevgeni 7y ago

Could you please elaborate, because I’m sure am not alone in my complete failure to understand what you mean.

ernst_klim 7y ago
Neither social institution could adhere to any rigid ideology. A social institution, which does not correct basic assumptions and axioms lying in its foundation according to new knowledge and data, is doomed. Any widespread movement or social institution exists under the pressure of new facts, new social norms, hence any social institution is a flexible moving target. Only the heterodox, marginal movements can adhere to a rigid ideology. Mainstream science can't have one, only marginal branches can. Modern economics is not a "neoliberal" plot, of course, there is a strong scientific discussion, various competing theories within it, which are constantly being validated using statistics, and omitted, if proved wrong. Economics today, 25 years ago and 50 years ago vastly differs even in methodology, it's a very vigorous field. To say that this edifice is grounded in some ideology, one needs to omit all that constant scientific discussion, render empirically proved parts as ideological, axioms as "truths" etc. This kind of intellectual dishonesty could come only from a ideology-loaded follower of some heterodox (and usually pseudoscientific) theory, most likely grounded in some ideology (guessing from value judgments of op like "neoliberal" -- left one) rather than verified by empiric data.
- jevgeni 7y ago
  Very well put! Thank you! I agree.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  I think the problem is many mistake mainstream political opinion for the prevailing scientific opinion. Most economists do not agree with the way our economy is being managed right now. The current political prevailing wind is definitely neoliberal. Of-course most people do not read economics papers.
- morningseagulls 7y ago
  >Mainstream science can't have one, only marginal branches can. This is like native speakers of a language (say, English) asserting that only non-native speakers of their language have accents. You do, you just speak with an accent that's considered to be standard. >This kind of intellectual dishonesty could come only from a ideology-loaded follower of some heterodox (and usually pseudoscientific) theory, most likely grounded in some ideology (guessing from value judgments of op like "neoliberal" -- left one) rather than verified by empiric data. And mainstream (i.e. neoclassical) economics[0] does that, even in the face of mathematical reality, let alone empirical data.[1] The ignorance of the implications of the SMD theorem,[2] because it implies that the aggregation problem remains unsolved and the fundamental breakdown of the "law" of demand, was a profoundly anti-intellectual move. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21269064 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21269064 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenschein%E2%80%93Mantel%E2%80%93Debreu_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenschein%E2%80%93Mantel%E2...
  - ernst_klim 7y ago
    > The ignorance of the implications of the SMD theorem You are confusing different things together. Mainstream exists in a form it is not because Mainstream translates the Truth™, but because there are no better theories yet. Newton's mechanics is worse than Einstein theory in describing celestial bodies' movements, yet the former was better than anything until the latter appeared. I have a lot to argue against neoclassical economy, especially about its view of a person as a profit-driven (rational, as they call it) degenerate, or fondness of regressions in the mid of chaos. Yet it changes in the right direction, behavioral economics appeared, regressions are taken with a grain of salt now, rational choice is heavily criticized. The problem is that no heterodox theory provides both an axiomatic basis and empirical framework to compete mainstream economic science. What would you propose instead of Neoclassical economics? Nothing? It's not ignorance to accept theory that is not always true, it's stupidity to omit theory without having anything better, as Lakatos would say. As for ideology, I don't see such a thing. People in mainstream science vary from Joseph "We all need to follow Venezuela example" Stiglitz to post Austrians like William White.