I've been meaning to read more econ blogs, because they are so insightful, especially about other disciplines. Take this post on Marginal Revolution:

The author is Kristin Luker and the subtitle is Research in an Age of Info-Glut. I enjoyed this book very much and I thought it was one of the best books on the philosophy of the social sciences I have read, ever. In part it is good because it ignores philosophy of science (and Continental philosophy gobbledy-gook) and focuses on the anthropology of how research is actually done. Here is the author's summary of her message

It's so true, philosophy of science is worthless unless of course it's Popper. Stephen Hawking likes Popper, and what is economics if not the physics of the social sciences? I need to read some Popper.

[Reads Popper]

Uh oh, seems Popper's philosophy implies that economics is a pseudo-science like marxism or psychoanalysis (according to Popper real science doesn't make unfalsifiable assumptions).

But wait! There's this person called Deirdre McCloskey, and she says that economics is a science. Except she's a postmodernist who doesn't believe that science reveals truth, tries to analyze economics as if it were literature, and has the uncanny ability to bore and annoy simultaneously.

Damn you philosophy of science! You've won this round, but I'll win the war by never reading you again and ignoring anything you have to say. After all, the proof is in the putting and look at how successful macroeconomics has been recently... except... doh!


  1. Romoney on 7 February 2009 at 02:17

    But aren't economic theories at least theoretically falsifiable? The problem is that they are so very hard to falsify.