Economics is clearly junk, like other religions. Â The problem is how to get free of it. Â Argument obviously fails, as it does across the religious spectrum and there is an Inquisition to combat. Â Meanwhile, most people live in poverty, with more of it (austerity) being the ‘answer’ to provide planet-burning groaf through libidinal mobile phone consumption of lucid-trash no one not under mind-control could want. Â 25 million people have died in war in more than half a century of peace.
One idea is that academics could somehow produced the killing factual argument on what is going on. Â My view is this is part of the problem. Â We don’t have the question marks in deep enough on argument and reasonable expectations of it. Â Sure, jaw-jaw is better than war-war – but this itself is not much of an argument. Â There is complex ‘argument on argument’ in the academy. Â Sextus Empiricus knew many equally powerful arguments can be made about the same issue. Â Dan Sperber has a current theory involving how we avoid the best arguments for those with easy evidence, and we now have defeasible logic that allows what is axiomatic to be under-cut and reformed by facts. Â Scientists know approximation takes place early in theory formation, concerning maths and measurement chosen (Ludwig, Sneed) and even physics is structuring reality. Â We should all know terms like ‘paradigm’, ‘root metaphor’, ‘postmodern moment’ and ‘revolutionary rather than puzzle-solving science’ if education really worked.
I’d love to have time and finance to do a defeasible analysis of economics. Â I doubt the subject would survive if it was really up for argumentative defeat. Â I don’t believe it is open to fair argument at all. Â This may seem very insulting to economists. Â Yet how would they fare when asked to describe what fair argument is? Â I contend they don’t know and that can be demonstrated. Â I’m also sure they know little on the nature of insult and who is doing what to whom and how.