[lbo-talk] a different kind of pseudoscience

[Jim Devine]

I'm the midst of reading Henry H. Bauer's excellent book, Science or 
Pseudoscience (University of Illinois, 2001). He argues that the dividing 
line between science and "pseudoscience" is not as clear as normally seen; 
they often work in parallel. Originally, for example, the propositions that 
meteorites or ball lightning exist were seen as pseudoscientific. Now they 
are seen as scientific. To quote the blurb on the back cover, "geniuses are 
cranks who happen to be right while cranks may be geniuses who happen to be 
wrong." 

The kind of pseudoscience he discusses includes the work of Immanuel 
Velikovsky and the later Wilhelm Reich (e.g., orgone boxes). But there's 
another kind of pseudoscience that he misses, one that's exemplified by the 
economics profession. It's social science that masquerades as physical 
science, pretending that there's a consensus among economists, that what 
"economics" means is obvious, that the field is engaged in "normal science" 
within an established and monolithic paradigm (neoclassical economics) and 
making steady progress, ignoring anomalies, and handling controversies 
internally.
-- 
Jim Devine [Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount University]
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people 
talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20050627/c24535ed/attachment.htm>