I think we are referring to two distinct audiences for the debunking arguments.
With creationism and astrology, no self-respecting scientist accepts anything about these bodies of "knowledge." They area near uniformly treated as superstition. However, that does not mean that no arguments are necessary vis-a-vis the lay audience. In fact, that is exactly where concerted efforts are needed.
Economic is similar, though is less unanimity among the "educated", in that the target audience is the lay person, who hears, with GREAT repitition, the successes of the market and its judtifying ideology.
So, I am saying that the argument must be made for two reasons: first, to make it harder for the neo-cons to present lasseiz faire policies as divine rights, and (2) to eduacte the masses so that they see the charlatans for what they are.
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> eric dorkin wrote:
>
> >then, if you debunk the econ, the bidniz folks lose
> >their "intellectual legitimacy." Therefore,
> debunking
> >neoclassical econ is of paramount importance. You
> >need to make it clear that the emperor has no
> clothes
> >
> >This is what I take to be Franks' argument --
> >persuasive too.
>
> But it doesn't matter. Neoclassical econ isn't about
> rational
> argument or belief - it's a form of ideology.
> Efficient market theory
> is clearly nonsense, but that hasn't stopped people
> from believing
> it. You could refute all of it until you're blue in
> the face and it
> won't make a damn bit of difference. Which,
> parenthetically, is one
> reason why the Bowles/Gintis/Folbre attempt to use
> neoclassical
> technique to make progressive/feminist arguments is
> doomed; they'll
> never persuade true believers, and their political
> allies are
> sensible enough to regard the whole NC enterprise as
> either
> delusional or corrupt.
>
> Doug
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com