I wrote:
of course, contrary to scientistic/positivistic propaganda, intuition is
part of science. What was Einstein, if not intuitive? (I'm told that his
math wasn't very good.) Scientists use their intuition all the time. But
then the products of intution that can't be validated logically or
empirically fall by the wayside.
Gene Coyle:
>If what "can't be validated logically or empirically" falls by the
wayside, how/why do we have economics?
>In confronting mainstream micro purveyors, anything empirical put before
their noses is dismissed as "anecdotal." An intuition that is
validated by unfolding events is "anecdotal." Meanwhile they can
validate neither empirically or logically. <
of course, the strictures of science are even harder to apply in the social sciences (though I can't see anything that can replace scientific attitudes). The problem is deeper, though: most economists purvey pseudo-science. They use all sorts of scientific lingo while practicing a version of religion. This is especially true of the "Chicago school."
But the only way to fight this crap is to be more scientific, not to try to present an alternative religion.
Jim
