Sorry for yet another "how should I respond" thread. My opponent's basic argument is like so:
Any theory you care to dream up ultimately must be valid only within a hypothetical vaccuum, where it cannot account for the complexities of reality. As a consequence economics can only make statements about tautological models which do not touch reality in any way. If economics says that A will perform action B, A can disprove economics simply by doing C instead.
Pradoxically, he does not apply this criticism to the natural sciences, but his criticism is not a positivistic one. He denies that cause and effect apply to social phenomenae at all.
I kinda know the answer to this one, but I don't really know how to word it. Any suggestions?
Cranks have attempted to discredit economic theory for centuries now and their arguments have already been dealt with/entirely refuted. In other words, this issue is already settled, whether this ignoramus is aware of it or not. But if you really must respond then you should mention the fact that economic theory consists entirely of deductions from certain premises. If he wishes to refute all of economics, then he must refute the validity of its initial premises. So, for example, he must refute:
Economics does not attempt to explain real-time price formation, that is, it will not tell you what the price of an apple will be 2 years from now (though some attempt to do this), nor does it tell you what Jim will buy with his first paycheck. His general attack on economics does not refute economic theory; it entirely ignores economic theory. But again, these philosophical debates are entirely barren and I wouldn't waste my time with this person.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
"In the first place, we must challenge the very idea of a radical separation between something that is “true in theory” but “not valid in practice.” If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory. The common separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one. But this is true in ethics as well as anything else. If an ethical ideal is inherently “impractical,” that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith. To put it more precisely, if an ethical goal violates the nature of man and/or the universe and, therefore, cannot work in practice, then it is a bad ideal and should be dismissed as a goal. If the goal itself violates the nature of man, then it is also a poor idea to work in the direction of that goal."
- MNR, Egalitarianism as a revolt against nature
So if the price of something rises and people buy less of it, that's just a coincidence...?
Much to my dismay, I can't back down once challenged. I was looking for something that could, possibly, change his mind on the issue. Then again when I tried to explain how the calculation argument works, he confused it for solipism.