research programs such as those found here-which fail to provide either new empirical insights or criticisms of existing practice that are intellectually compelling, let alone constructive ways to proceed-do not have enough substance to warrant a claim on intellectual resources. In my judgment, in this instance the marketplace of ideas is working efficiently.-Steven N. Durlauf, Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison
[WS:] I can see two weaknesses with this argument - monopoly and public good.
Markets do not work well under monopolistic condition, because alternatives cannot compete with the monopolist. This pertains to the market of ideas as well. Monopolization in the market of ideas often occurs as a result of custom, habit, cognitive framing, as well as peer, political or ideological pressure (orthodoxy) - which are the norm rather than an exception.
Second, markets do not work well with public goods i.e. goods that are non-excludable and non-rival. While ideas may be rival (i.e. acceptance of one is incompatible with the acceptance of its alternative) they are surely non-excludable (i.e. non-payers cannot be prevented from adopting and using them). It thus follows that the producers of ideas have nothing to gain from freely exchanging them. Instead they will try to proprietize them (secret code, copy rights, etc.) and sell them instead.
The above suggests that ideas do not spread as easily as the above quotation suggests and therefore the purported beneficial effect of the "market of ideas" on the science as a whole is pretty much in doubt. If anything, the market of ideas can produce the monotonous, boring and shallow uniformity a la US television.
I think a better argument in defence of the science as a whole is institutional - claiming the presence of institutional guarantees and forces that prevent and actively break down monopolies, subsidize the broadest possible range of research, actively promote dissemination of minority points of views, ascertain public ownership of ideas etc. I think that without those institutional safeguards Ravi's bleak view of science as a semi-private monopoly for orthodoxy would indeed be difficult to refute.
That is to say, I agree with Ravi that science (like markets) cannot effectively self-regulate to achieve some mythical Pareto optimum or truth. However, science is seldom a self-regulating market. More often than not it is practiced in a definite institutional settings, and its accomplishments reflect those settings. If these institutional settings actively promote intellectual monopolies, the science turns out to be as Ravi claims. However, if these institutional setting promote rational search for truth (as it is the case, for the most part in the EU and still in the US) - science will be what it claims to be - the most accurate and rational representation of reality under particular historical conditions.
PS. Sorry for overposting - this is my last today.
Wojtek