It is useful to view this neoclassical tripe as a case of 'scientific research programme' (Imre Lakatos, _Methodology of scientific research programme_, Cambridge U Press, 1992) which in essence treats scientific theories as institutions defended by their supporters against obliteration in the face of contradicting evidence. Contrary to Popperian falsificationism claiming that theories are rejected as soon as bone fide attempts to falsify them suceed, Lakatos claims that it ain't so - as any other social institution, theories live the lives of their own, defended against empirical refutation by those who have personal stakes in them.
Two main mechanisms of such a defence are:
- negative heuristic whose role is to delineate an "immune to refutation' core of a theory by steering inquiries away from those paths that may challenge that core; in case of nc econ, such a core is the behavioral model based on self-interest and rationality (i.e. utility maximization) and the more tacit assumption about the linear nature of the utility function. Both assumption can be challenged by sociology and cognitive sciences which suggest alternative behavioral models (e.g. based on institutionalized rules and expectations rather than utility maximization) and non-linear, non-additive nature of human information processing (including cost - benefit analysis) i.e. using cognitive schemata or "filters" that altogether ignore certain features or "data" while emphasizing others - instead of balancing them in a linear regression-like fashion. The nc econ simply assumes its behavioral model as valid and ignores all other alternatives, often by disparagingly calling them 'sociology'
- positive heursitic which involves concocting semantic devices to reconcile the 'irrefutable' core with seemingly contradiction evidence. One such a semantic device in nc econ is the concepr of 'preference' which is used to 'explain' behavior that on its face contradict the utility maximization model. So if an individal lives in poverty, we are told that she 'prefers' leisure or spending time with her children to gainful emmployment, so the disutility of the unemployment prevails over utility of employment. Ofc ourse, the argument is purely semantic because it can explain behavior only ex post facto (i.e. when the outcomes are known) but it cannot predict unknown outcomes i.e. it cannot tell which person and under what condition will opt for 'leisure' over employment.
The main objective of a 'research programme' is not empirical testing of theories, but fishing for facts that may corroborate it.
Another analogy to explain the nc econ behavior is religious expansionism, such as catholicism. The catholic church is known for its practices of incorporating elements of religious beliefs of colonized peoples into its own frame of reference - thus we have a germanic tree symbolizing x-mas, egg (pagan symbol of fertility) symbolizing easter, or inca's cult of the ancestors transforemd into the cult of catholic saints. This is intellectual imperialism par excellence. NC econ professors want to colonize the domain of other social science to sap support for their own religion - just as the roman catholic clergy colonized other religious systems by selective incorporating their elements into their own belief system.
BTW, debating economists, especialy of the nc variety, is counterproductive, because they do not recognize rationality of others, only of their own. Anyone who disagrees with them is automatically presumed 'non-rational' and thus unworthy of responding (cf. Brad DeLong's nonresponses to inconvenient questions on this list). When the revolution finally comes, all their writings should be burned and they should be sent to reeducation camps where they will learn about the virtues of experiencing the empirical world.
When I hear "nc economics," I ignite by BiC. (no apologies to hanns johst)
wojtek