"Rather than solely focusing on the origins of mainstream economic theories, they should strive to offer substantive criticisms backed by thorough research and reasoned analysis."
But, (perhaps this isn't what the author is insinuating) if I engage in empricisim in order to try and disprove mainstream econ thought, don't I commit the same sin as them? I can't prove mainstream econ wrong for the very same reason they can't prove themselves right - namely relying on the empirical/mathematical backbone.
There's obviously more that goes into it other than "they use math, therefore they are wrong". But, at what point does the genetic fallacy stop being one?
"How to effectively defeat their conclusion" would make for a great article. There is no model you can rinse, wash, repeat. You have to approach each argument on its own terms. But, in short, there are two options. First, an internal critique. Showing, on their own terms, why their conclusion is wrong. Or point to incoherence or a contradiction in their thinking. Second, providing a causal realist analysis (i.e. Austrian analysis).
This article is pointing to something seen often online, where internet Austrians focus too much on methodology and not enough on the Economics (i.e. flippantly ignoring mainstream arguments based on their methodology. Not even bothering to learn the opposition's argument). If your goal is to win people over, then win them over by doing good economics.
Mainsleaze economists parrot a swarm agenda - very calculated in order to shepherd the sheep - a system science - not economic science... the establishment follows single inputs - multiple outputs agenda, only as long as the public continue to believe them. How's that for ongoing evolution of economic thought? Academics/Sciences are in for a pretty rough road ahead... better get used to it.
"Rather than solely focusing on the origins of mainstream economic theories, they should strive to offer substantive criticisms backed by thorough research and reasoned analysis."
But, (perhaps this isn't what the author is insinuating) if I engage in empricisim in order to try and disprove mainstream econ thought, don't I commit the same sin as them? I can't prove mainstream econ wrong for the very same reason they can't prove themselves right - namely relying on the empirical/mathematical backbone.
There's obviously more that goes into it other than "they use math, therefore they are wrong". But, at what point does the genetic fallacy stop being one?
"How to effectively defeat their conclusion" would make for a great article. There is no model you can rinse, wash, repeat. You have to approach each argument on its own terms. But, in short, there are two options. First, an internal critique. Showing, on their own terms, why their conclusion is wrong. Or point to incoherence or a contradiction in their thinking. Second, providing a causal realist analysis (i.e. Austrian analysis).
This article is pointing to something seen often online, where internet Austrians focus too much on methodology and not enough on the Economics (i.e. flippantly ignoring mainstream arguments based on their methodology. Not even bothering to learn the opposition's argument). If your goal is to win people over, then win them over by doing good economics.
Mainsleaze economists parrot a swarm agenda - very calculated in order to shepherd the sheep - a system science - not economic science... the establishment follows single inputs - multiple outputs agenda, only as long as the public continue to believe them. How's that for ongoing evolution of economic thought? Academics/Sciences are in for a pretty rough road ahead... better get used to it.