Vichy Army:Um, 99% of economics you see in a University beyond intro micro is bogus and ridiculous nonsense.
Can anyone name one other academic field (that, as a consensus, is taken seriously) where "99%" of it is "bogus and ridiculous nonsense"?
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
I have noticed the slightest tendency among some members of this board to exaggerate the imperfections of mainstream economics.
Neoclassical: Can anyone name one other academic field (that, as a consensus, is taken seriously) where "99%" of it is "bogus and ridiculous nonsense"?
No, but, discounting the exaggeration, mainstream linguistics is pretty messed up.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Neoclassical:Can anyone name one other academic field (that, as a consensus, is taken seriously) where "99%" of it is "bogus and ridiculous nonsense"?
Political Science, Sociology, much of Psychology, etc....
Can the two of you, Ryan and DD5, point out examples for your claims?
All academia is seriously flawed.
Get over it.
Academics don't get money back on their ideas the way businessmen do. This is just as much true whether the academic is Lew Rockwell or Paul Krugman.
Metus: Can the two of you, Ryan and DD5, point out examples for your claims?
The parts of mainstream linguistics concerned with "physical" things, such as the physiology of speech, the acoustics of speech sounds, voice recognition, and so on, are fine, but the parts of it concerned with "mental" things, such as syntax, semantics, and so on, are almost useless. They suffer from the same methodological problems that the Austrian School economists say that the mainstream economists suffer from. They try to use the methods of natural science to figure out things such as syntax, semantics, and so on, and it just doesn't work very well. What they end up coming up with is just a mess of ad hoc, disjointed, and disintegrated descriptions of natural languages.
On the myriad problems of linguistics, I'm finding a layman named Amorey Gethin echoes my views almost to a "T". I've been enjoying this very obscure book immensely, though it's taking me forever since I'm reading it in Japanese to force myself to practice. It also doubles as the only guide to clear thinking I can recommend in good conscience.
Why anarchy fails
Neoclassical: Vichy Army:Um, 99% of economics you see in a University beyond intro micro is bogus and ridiculous nonsense. Can anyone name one other academic field (that, as a consensus, is taken seriously) where "99%" of it is "bogus and ridiculous nonsense"?
Cultural Studies
Ain't no one taking Cultural Studies seriously!
I definitely think contemporary linguistics is impressively empirical and has produced consistently worthwhile findings.
Neoclassical: Ain't no one taking Cultural Studies seriously! Not true. Just admit it: the Cultural Studies example deflates your attempted point in the OP. "the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume | Post Points: 20
What about political philosophy? I wouldn't claim economics is taken seriously though. Laymen are quick to point out that "economics isn't a science" and "people aren't rational".
Prateek Sanjay:Academics don't get money back on their ideas the way businessmen do. This is just as much true whether the academic is Lew Rockwell or Paul Krugman.
Neoclassical: I definitely think contemporary linguistics is impressively empirical and has produced consistently worthwhile findings.
Where and about what?