You do realize that is how the creationists argue about the biology academics? :-(
You do realize that I don't care who else argues something in a particular way in another domain, as long as an argument is correct in another domain!
The problem is that to show something completely wrong (a year or two ago, you'd probably have linked to Picketty?) is a good way to make a career.
Not really. To piss on your own field, is a good way to be considered a pariah, a conspiracy theorist, a nut job etc. Not many grants coming to the self-doubting economist, and policy advisor positions either.
But to dismiss a field of research, you really need better support.
Like self-deprecating citations from practitioners in the field?
(Even if expecting that is illogical to begin with -- since economics is what puts food on their table --, you'd be surprised how many economists have written self-deprecating critiques about economics)
> To piss on your own field, is a good way to be considered a pariah, a conspiracy theorist, a nut job etc. Not many grants coming to the self-doubting economist, and policy advisor positions either.
You can say the same for any research area.
> Like self-deprecating citations from practitioners in the field?
You know yourself that you can find that for most fields. I know I've heard it for biochemistry (regarding over relying on computer modelling for evaluating molecules, a long time ago; I have no idea what people to do now).
It is normal and necessary introspection about what you are doing -- "Do we do the right things? Are we going in a good direction?"
Comments
You do realize that I don't care who else argues something in a particular way in another domain, as long as an argument is correct in another domain!
Not really. To piss on your own field, is a good way to be considered a pariah, a conspiracy theorist, a nut job etc. Not many grants coming to the self-doubting economist, and policy advisor positions either.
Like self-deprecating citations from practitioners in the field?
(Even if expecting that is illogical to begin with -- since economics is what puts food on their table --, you'd be surprised how many economists have written self-deprecating critiques about economics)
You can say the same for any research area.
You know yourself that you can find that for most fields. I know I've heard it for biochemistry (regarding over relying on computer modelling for evaluating molecules, a long time ago; I have no idea what people to do now).
It is normal and necessary introspection about what you are doing -- "Do we do the right things? Are we going in a good direction?"