> Doug Henwood wrote:
> >Yup, which is why I never thought it was worth the trouble. Maybe I
> >just don't find refuting neoclassical economics worth the trouble -
> >it's so ludicrous anyway. Do I have to refute astrology too?
>
================
You know all to well that attempts at refuting nce have been going on for decades now and it's a classic case of what Quine, Duhem and Lakatos were talking about regarding intra and inter theoretic revisability. The mud slinging and the state[s] of the world that are traceable to the policy prescriptions based on nc analytics would seem to indicate not so much a need to refute it but a larger demand that economics be knocked off it's perch as the self anointed master of understanding and prescribing what kinds of social organizations we're capable of creating to mediate our relations with the planet. Political economy might be a worthwhile servant in this process, but it makes a lousy master.
Ian