Great Arnold Kling post on James Buchanan

Without disagreeing, Kling offers a criticism of economics that I think deserves greater consideration and can be explained in 3 steps.

1. Often economists (and sociologists, literary critics, anthropologists, etc) proclaim the ?discovery? of, say Human Tendency XYZ, which is known to other fields like sociology, literature, anthropology, etc. (or economics). They?ve illustrated a known human tendency within the jargon/methods/visual representations of their own field.

2. This straw-economist could declare that his methods confirm what other fields ?broke? first. But instead, straw-economist announces the ?discovery? or ?news? that Human Tendency XYZ exists, or emphasizes that his method (graphs and curves!) is the first proof of Human Tendency XYZ. This celebrates novelty and difference over broadly agreed upon truth.

3. Lay people don?t trust ?new studies? reported by newspapers or cited by their friends announcing a result from a self-selecting group of academics (like economists, sociologists, literary critics, philosophers, anthropologists). They?re dime-a-dozen. Only after numerous fields agree on Human Tendency XYZ, the lay person may start trusting the consensus more than his ownself.

If that?s true at all, then Kling?s right that thinking and communicating more like (or acknowledging the merit of) other fields means that economics will join with them to propel the broader understanding of human activity.
I?m not sure, but it?s a thought worth having.

Reply

Source: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/01/great-arnold-kling-post-on-james-buchanan.html

seattle weather skier sarah burke gingrich wife cheryl burke sarah burke mega upload santorum wins iowa