Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Restriction of Economics forum to Mainstream Economics
Options
Comments
-
Your analogy is false, and I'm not going to accept the ludicrous framing you use, comparing the concerns in this thread to a post on the Conspiracy Theory forum - that's inherently making the connection between Heterodox as being non-empirical, which is false.I'll try to relate this to Conspiracy Theories. Under the same principles of discussion, we re-opened the can of worms on the Lunar Landing because several people were happy to discuss it, including myself. That did not prohibit theorists/proponents of the CT from dismissing provided evidences and counter-arguments; they wanted to keep recycling the same ground that had already been covered several times in that thread already under the general premise/ethos (like KomradeBishop is using) that #AllOpinionsMatter. That got messy, though the thread is still open and IMO a good read.
Similarly, we've had several discussions in the forum in general that were hijacked and/or redirected off of their original topic to turn the thread(s) into a 9/11 discussion, when we actually had a forum for that (unlike this case, but that doesn't defeat the argument). Even in those discussions, the conversations all got sucked into the same talking points ad nauseum (eg. Obama is the incarnation of Satan who is leading a cabal of 13 satanic families in ruling the Earth; Seth MacFarlane is an illuminati or something)(I am not making that up).
I can see why people might want to discuss this issue though, and if needs to be hashed out, hash it out - to a point. If every thread turns into a "well this the Heterodoxical way of doing it..." that's going to cause friction. @Andrew @KomradeBishop, has there been a "megathread" and/or specific discussion about Heterodoxical economics, and if so how did that work out? Instead of derailing other threads with Heterodoxical debate points, you could reference other threads in such a heterodoxical megathread, and discuss your opinions from there. Just like has been done at several points in this feedback thread, we've referenced other threads and forums and yet brought that discussion here, not there(s); thus instead of trying to pitch a Heterodoxical war-tent in every thread in sight, you can reference those threads while discussing your viewpoint, in a thread about Heterodoxical economics.
I have provided ample proof of Heterodox views that have enough evidence backing them, to be indisputable - showing that it is not appropriate to restrict the forum to Mainstream Economics views.
Heterodox/Mainstream/whatever: The economics forum is for views based on reality, based on evidence - not based on the favoured ideology of a forum mod (Mainstream Economics).
I am not going to accept any thread-limiting/categorization of economic views based on whether they are heterodox or not - so your 'compromise' is a no-go - it's either founded in evidence or not, and if it's founded in evidence, it's fair game anywhere, in any discussion.
Effectively your 'compromise' is just advocating another form of censorship, except restricting everything to one thread instead of eliminating it completely.
Eliminate the labels in use here: Economics with a solid grounding in evidence, fits the Economics forum - regardless of what 'label' it fits under - and this means restricting the economics forum to being only about one 'label' (Mainstream Economics), excludes everything else evidence-based, that is not covered under that label (like many well-founded Heterodox views), which is explicit censorship.0 -
Attacking a post for presenting smears, is attacking the post, not the person. Your post here "continue to have a whinge sesh about how your ego has been bruised" is attacking the poster...Did you want to discuss the topic/issue (the creation/allotment of an avenue for your viewpoint discussion), or continue to have a whinge sesh about how your ego has been bruised? Because I'm trying to get your opinion/feedback on my proposal and you keep coming back at me with remarks that have nothing to do with that. The topic will not be made by continuing to attack the moderator of the forum you are trying to participate in, and as discussed, the new forum has virtually no chance of creation at this juncture (Terminal Illness is at the front of the line, IMO).
This thread is not about any new forum, it is solely about the risk of non-mainstream economics views being censored off of Economics.0 -
Well, then you're not going to get anywhere. Just being frank. You may as well jump into every thread in the Windows forum and tell people their problem would be resolved by switching to OSX. At the same time, Windows vs. OSX debates occur, in their logical categorization (ie. threads).
If you see providing a thread for your discussion as censorship, you would also have to view the 9/11 forum as censorship, given that it is the repository for discussion about 9/11. But, if people want to discuss 9/11, where do they go? If people don't want to read a bunch of "THERMITE CANT MELT STEEL" posts, where do they avoid? Similarly, there are Creationism vs. Evolution Theory threads that carry on ad infinitum - none of which could possibly be rationally construed as censorship.
You could only really view having a thread about Heterodoxical Economics as censorship, if you also are admitting that nobody really cares to read or engage your viewpoint - therefore, they will not post in such a thread, and you would be alone in your thoughts. But that isn't censorship, that's actually just a freedom of speech and the freedom to ignore. Your preferred solution for having a minority opinion is to slap it down into every discussion you can, to maximize its visibility. That's soap-boxing, and in many forums it is explicitly listed as a rules violation and in general it is viewed as disruptive to discussion.
I urge you to take my advice: if you think your viewpoint is solid enough to undergo scrutiny, have it battled out in such a thread, get other forum regulars on board with your idea and then perhaps your views would be more readily assimilated into the forum's priors.0 -
You're making another false analogy. Different economic schools are not like different computer operating systems, you have to be kidding...
You are mistaking views based on evidence with views that are just opinions. This is not a matter of just different opinions, the restriction being placed on the forum would exclude Heterodox views based on evidence, solely because they are Heterodox.
I'm not going to entertain your other specious comparisons either - it should be obvious to anyone, how restricting discussion that is valid on any thread, to one single thread, is a form of censorship - which for starters, prevents any criticism of views on other threads...
If you accuse me of soapboxing, back that up with something - having a minority view, and discussing it regularly, is not soapboxing - trying to present that as soapboxing, solely because it is a minority view (which is exactly what you are doing, as you keep panning 'Heterodoxy' as a whole), is again smearing.
Again, you keep trying to redirect discussion to being about me personally - again, this thread is about the forum, and the attempt to implement censorship of the forum, so that it only represents Mainstream Economics - can we please keep it at that?0 -
Alright: if this thread is "not about the mod action" please provide some empirical examples of attempts to implement censorship on the forum in the manner you have proclaimed. I took a look at the last year of the Economics forum, briefly, and can't see where there is anything that would imply there is heavy handed moderating against a particular viewpoint - particularly if we are dismissing the mod action in question. Could you point it out?this thread is about the forum, and the attempt to implement censorship of the forum, so that it only represents Mainstream Economics - can we please keep it at that?0 -
Advertisement
-
Look I don't want to reiterate the last 3 pages of back and forth here. This:
Is what the thread is about - andrew wanting to limit Economics to discussion of mainstream economics.I think it’s fair enough to broadly limit discussion to mainstream economics which conforms to that methodology as taught in pretty much any Undergraduate or Postgraduate Economics course.
Me and andrew have a divide over what constitutes mainstream economics (I insist it is this - largely represented by the neoclassical school of economics, far more than just methodology/priors, it is a whole ideology/framework, which is much more political) - and we have a divide over whether Heterodox (which by definition is not mainstream) economics has empirical validity (I insist some of it does, and have provided proof) - and thus there is disagreement on whether restricting discussion of Heterodox economics, will lead to excluding empirically valid discussion from Economics (I insist that it would), which would be censorship.0 -
The problem is people aren't pushing heterodox economics they're pushing ideologies. It was a problem on that forum when I modded it years ago and it's going to always be a problem.
I think a lot of it would be better suited to the Politics forum as that's really what it is.0 -
-
The problem is people aren't pushing heterodox economics they're pushing ideologies. It was a problem on that forum when I modded it years ago and it's going to always be a problem.
I think a lot of it would be better suited to the Politics forum as that's really what it is.
Economics in general is really just an extension of political "science" political theory and economic theory don't, haven't and can't exist in vacuums void of each other.
People's political ideologies shape their economic theories and people's economic ideologies shape their political theories. There's no way around it.0 -
The problem is people aren't pushing heterodox economics they're pushing ideologies. It was a problem on that forum when I modded it years ago and it's going to always be a problem.
I think a lot of it would be better suited to the Politics forum as that's really what it is.
You so say exactly the same thing about orthodox economics though.0 -
Advertisement
-
The trouble is, that's exactly what Mainstream Economics is - an ideology - and that's what the Economics forum would become restricted to.The problem is people aren't pushing heterodox economics they're pushing ideologies. It was a problem on that forum when I modded it years ago and it's going to always be a problem.
I think a lot of it would be better suited to the Politics forum as that's really what it is.
Despite protestations that Mainstream Economics is mainly about methodology etc., it isn't - it's well known to go much further, and encompass a set of specific theories/frameworks, which constitute an ideology (some which flew in the face of evidence for almost a century - a big marker of ideology trumping evidence), and so is much more highly politicized.0 -
Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »You so say exactly the same thing about orthodox economics though.
Not really. The problem was the how not the what. People weren't discussing economic theory they were shouting from soapboxes that they knew the one and only truth. This isn't useful for having any kind of reasonable discussion.KomradeBishop wrote: »The trouble is, that's exactly what Mainstream Economics is - an ideology - and that's what the Economics forum would become restricted to.
Despite protestations that Mainstream Economics is mainly about methodology etc., it isn't - it's well known to go much further, and encompass a set of specific theories/frameworks, which constitute an ideology (some which flew in the face of evidence for almost a century - a big marker of ideology trumping evidence), and so is much more highly politicized.
Look, bluntly what I did research in in economics was very far from the orthodox so you don't need to convince me that mainstream economics has holes in it and that models are pushed that really we should know better than to push but the problem is threads like this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057521910
Someone asks an obvious homework question and you barge in with some half-understood stuff about some Leaving Cert/first year undergraduate "lies to children" because you need to "teach the controversy." This isn't useful, it isn't the place for it and you're not doing it in a way that will generate useful discussion. This is what I mean by pushing an ideology, I'm talking about behaviour in threads not whether or not what you're talking about is an ideology or not.0 -
Am I correct in gathering you are using posts from within this feedback thread as proof of a claim you made in your original post?KomradeBishop wrote: »Look I don't want to reiterate the last 3 pages of back and forth here. This:
Is what the thread is about - andrew wanting to limit Economics to discussion of mainstream economics.
Me and andrew have a divide over what constitutes mainstream economics (I insist it is this - largely represented by the neoclassical school of economics, far more than just methodology/priors, it is a whole ideology/framework, which is much more political) - and we have a divide over whether Heterodox (which by definition is not mainstream) economics has empirical validity (I insist some of it does, and have provided proof) - and thus there is disagreement on whether restricting discussion of Heterodox economics, will lead to excluding empirically valid discussion from Economics (I insist that it would), which would be censorship.0 -
By their explicit definitions, both Economics and Psychology are sciences.
So is Christian Science by their definitions. They call themselves scientists.
Economics may have mathematics. But it is a largely ideologically driven pseudo science with no predictive powers. It also has different "schools" and what KB is arguing for – a Keynsian analysis was once mainstream and has Nobel prize winners (for all that's worth) amongst it's promoters.0 -
I realise that it's not at all conducive to good discussion when one forum contributor is obsessed with a particular idea that they introduce into 9 out of 10 threads. It can happen in any forum, but isn't that covered by current rules on soapboxing? And disruptive posting?
And I don't know if I'm picking this up wrong, but surely you can't rule whole swathes of economic theory out of order?
If you want to get rid of disruptive posters, then moderate them but you can't unilaterally decide that the discussion of economics, as a discipline, is confined to neo-classical economics. Honestly, that is really bizarre.0 -
You're just smearing me there nesf - you have left completely unbacked, your accusation of me 'teaching the controversy' - come up with something better and more substantive than a lazy creationist comparison.Not really. The problem was the how not the what. People weren't discussing economic theory they were shouting from soapboxes that they knew the one and only truth. This isn't useful for having any kind of reasonable discussion.
Look, bluntly what I did research in in economics was very far from the orthodox so you don't need to convince me that mainstream economics has holes in it and that models are pushed that really we should know better than to push but the problem is threads like this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057521910
Someone asks an obvious homework question and you barge in with some half-understood stuff about some Leaving Cert/first year undergraduate "lies to children" because you need to "teach the controversy." This isn't useful, it isn't the place for it and you're not doing it in a way that will generate useful discussion. This is what I mean by pushing an ideology, I'm talking about behaviour in threads not whether or not what you're talking about is an ideology or not.
When there are known flaws with something like what that poster asked about, there's no reason not to point them out - and trying to exclude pointing out those flaws, is explicitly censorship.
Your comparison to creationism, creates the implication that my criticism is pseudoscientific/nonsense - you back that up with nothing - when you throw out an unbacked argument like that at someone, that's a smear.
In order for the 'teach the controversy' nonsense to hold, these conditions have to be met:
1: When a person says something contrary to the Mainstream view, this is not by itself 'teaching the controversy'.
2: What a person says has to be disprovable/wrong (in this case, nobody has disproved what was said - and in fact, the argument was shut down before it could have started).
3: What is said has to be lacking in empirical evidence (what I said has plenty of easily found evidence).
4: There has to be no actual controversy about what is being debated (the mere condition of Mainstream Economics holding something as true, does not mean there is no controversy, as Heterodox arguments well-founded in evidence, dispute the consistency).
Every single one of those conditions must be true, to fit the 'teaching the controversy' label - not a single one of them is true, and no attempt was made to back the accusation in any way, so applying the label to me is nothing more than a smear.
It's also very uncivil, to be throwing smears at someone, and refusing to back them up with any kind of evidence/argument - it's extremely lazy (and outright contemptuous if people refuse to back up a smear, yet continue to use/support it...that would signify a more dishonest intent, not merely being lazy about backing it up - that's not the case with you yet), and wastes a lot of thread space when I have to defend against that in-detail, to break down exactly how it is a smear - it's not the first time, I've seen mods use this and similar tactics to try and back mod action or influence the future course of a forum either, so I'm very cynical of it...
Note: Again, this thread is not about the mod action, it is about the intent to limit the forum to Mainstream Economics - please keep it at that, instead of trying to personalize the thread on me.0 -
The original post was spawned from the PM conversation I had with andrew - where he claimed Economics will be restricted to Mainstream Economics (that is the claim in my original post) - andrew then repeated his intention to limit the forum to Mainstream Economics on-thread.Am I correct in gathering you are using posts from within this feedback thread as proof of a claim you made in your original post?0 -
Soapboxing is when you don't engage in debate, and only post to push a particular view - this then naturally creates an extremely big problem for you, when you debate a minority view frequently (key word is debate - that's not soapboxing), even if it's well-founded in evidence, because then people can credibly portray you as 'soapboxing' just because you're in the minority (Argument-ad-populum; something along the lines of "His view is in the minority therefore it's ridiculous. His view is ridiculous and in the minority therefore it's soapboxing").I realise that it's not at all conducive to good discussion when one forum contributor is obsessed with a particular idea that they introduce into 9 out of 10 threads. It can happen in any forum, but isn't that covered by current rules on soapboxing? And disruptive posting?
And I don't know if I'm picking this up wrong, but surely you can't rule whole swathes of economic theory out of order?
If you want to get rid of disruptive posters, then moderate them but you can't unilaterally decide that the discussion of economics, as a discipline, is confined to neo-classical economics. Honestly, that is really bizarre.
You'll never be accused of soapboxing, for debating an economic view that is in the mainstream (so long as you are actually debating, not pushing a view) - even if it's easy to show it is empirically false.
So the problem is: Debating an empirically-factual view is not disruptive, but if that view is in the minority the response it gets can be very disruptive (economics is the type of topic more prone than almost any other, to heavy condescension/incivility) - but because you're in the minority, you get the blame for that response as well, which is pretty unfair (arguments trying to justify this blame, just reduce down to "because you're in the minority").
So that means even then, it's not hard to censor views: Other posters can censor a minority view just by being uncivil enough against it, in large enough numbers, so that they can bring mod action down disproportionately on the minority view.
At the end of the day: Views that are easily empirically supportable, and which are actually debated (not merely pushed/soapboxed), should be fair game and not treated as a problem.
This thread though, is - as you say - about the much more damaging approach to this, which involves restricting everything to Mainstream Economics.0 -
What support did your theory on the supply/demand issue from the post that started this have?
Please be succinct.0 -
This thread is about the issue in the OP, not the mod action on the thread or me personally, neither about trying to get in opportunities for point-scoring against me, which I remember you for from before.Deleted User wrote: »What support did your theory on the supply/demand issue from the post that started this have?
Please be succinct.0 -
Advertisement
-
KomradeBishop wrote: »This thread is about the issue in the OP, not the mod action on the thread, neither about trying to get in opportunities for point-scoring against me, which I remember you for from before.
It is in reference to your previous post where you suggest it is not soapboxing if you adequately support your arguments.KomradeBishop wrote:At the end of the day: Views that are easily empirically supportable, and which are actually debated (not merely pushed/soapboxed), should be fair game and not treated as a problem.0 -
If you look at my post on that thread there are two sources - an economics book, and a link to a wider discussion on an economics blog; I try to always adequately support my arguments with references/links - and I'm not up for continuing the debate on those sources here.Deleted User wrote: »It is in reference to your previous post where you suggest it is not soapboxing if you adequately support your arguments.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »If you look at my post on that thread there are two sources - an economics book, and a link to a wider discussion on an economics blog; I try to always adequately support my arguments with references/links - and I'm not up for continuing the debate on those sources here.
Here is a blog about healing powers of fairies.
Here are some books about healing powers of fairies (1, 2)
Should medical issues fora allow discussion of the healing powers of fairies?0 -
Now you are proving you just want to engage in point-scoring.Deleted User wrote: »
I'm not up for continuing the debate from that thread - that's not what this topic is about - and my sources were a book from an economics professor heading a University economics department, and an undegraduate economist learning about the flaws in economic teaching.
If you want to continue to piss on my sources - which are completely unrelated to this thread - please take it elsewhere.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »You're just smearing me there nesf - you have left completely unbacked, your accusation of me 'teaching the controversy' - come up with something better and more substantive than a lazy creationist comparison.
When there are known flaws with something like what that poster asked about, there's no reason not to point them out - and trying to exclude pointing out those flaws, is explicitly censorship.
Your comparison to creationism, creates the implication that my criticism is pseudoscientific/nonsense - you back that up with nothing - when you throw out an unbacked argument like that at someone, that's a smear.
In order for the 'teach the controversy' nonsense to hold, these conditions have to be met:
1: When a person says something contrary to the Mainstream view, this is not by itself 'teaching the controversy'.
2: What a person says has to be disprovable/wrong (in this case, nobody has disproved what was said - and in fact, the argument was shut down before it could have started).
3: What is said has to be lacking in empirical evidence (what I said has plenty of easily found evidence).
4: There has to be no actual controversy about what is being debated (the mere condition of Mainstream Economics holding something as true, does not mean there is no controversy, as Heterodox arguments well-founded in evidence, dispute the consistency).
Every single one of those conditions must be true, to fit the 'teaching the controversy' label - not a single one of them is true, and no attempt was made to back the accusation in any way, so applying the label to me is nothing more than a smear.
It's also very uncivil, to be throwing smears at someone, and refusing to back them up with any kind of evidence/argument - it's extremely lazy (and outright contemptuous if people refuse to back up a smear, yet continue to use/support it...that would signify a more dishonest intent, not merely being lazy about backing it up - that's not the case with you yet), and wastes a lot of thread space when I have to defend against that in-detail, to break down exactly how it is a smear - it's not the first time, I've seen mods use this and similar tactics to try and back mod action or influence the future course of a forum either, so I'm very cynical of it...
Note: Again, this thread is not about the mod action, it is about the intent to limit the forum to Mainstream Economics - please keep it at that, instead of trying to personalize the thread on me.
Why do you focus on the one throwaway analogy in my post that was obviously not meant literally and ignore the important bit about the problem?0 -
I haven't read the full thread, but unorthodox economic views should be allowed, so long as people are being civil.0
-
No. I'm giving an example of the type of source that simply doesn't hold enough weight to be considered in a realistic tone.KomradeBishop wrote: »Now you are proving you just want to engage in point-scoring.
If you are not up for continuing debate, then perhaps you were indeed guilty of soapboxing, since you are not going to stand by the claims you presented.KomradeBishop wrote: »I'm not up for continuing the debate from that thread - that's not what this topic is about - and my sources were a book from an economics professor heading a University economics department, and an undegraduate economist learning about the flaws in economic teaching.
The faeries book and blog is that of Dr Doreen Virtue.
Are we now both appealing to authority in hoping to dismiss valid criticisms? I don't pretend for a second that I value Ms Virtue's PHD btw. And certainly not her views on medicine.
Extraordinarily related. You cannot claim 'easily empirical support' as some form of defence against soapboxing, when the support that you have offered is barely questionable in terms of quality.KomradeBishop wrote: »If you want to continue to piss on my sources - which are completely unrelated to this thread - please take it elsewhere.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »
Comparing heterodox economic theory to magic is ridiculous. Some of the worlds most influential economic theorists put forward heterodox ideas all the time.
Limiting discussion to "main stream" economics basically limits it to Keynesian and Neoclassical discussions, so what's the point in having the forum at all?
You might as well just put a .gif of a circle jerk between Krugman, Barnett and Reinhart and be done with it.
Heterodox doesn't mean wrong. It doesn't in hard science and it definitely doesn't in soft social sciences.
I studied under Charles Engel at WSU Madison and even he would chortle into his whisky at the idea that economic discussion should be limited at all.
He is dogmatic in his viewpoint but was still open to discussion of any economic school and even conceding that there was usefulness in exploring all of them as even the "most wrong" schools of thought have grains of brilliance in them.0 -
I focus on that because it was a fairly big smear (one that's been used more than once in the thread, dozens of times if you include variants), and smears like that get used to attack the credibility of arguments, without attacking the argument - and there didn't seem much else worth responding to in the post, given that I'm trying to keep this thread about the OP, not about the mod action in that thread.Why do you focus on the one throwaway analogy in my post that was obviously not meant literally and ignore the important bit about the problem?
Going back over it, your post is full of other lazy accusations which you back with nothing - like this stupid mischaracterization of my post:
"you barge in with some half-understood stuff about some Leaving Cert/first year undergraduate "lies to children"
Why do you expect me to reply to condescending crap like that, where you mischaracterize my argument?
The Economics forum isn't merely for answering homework questions in a way that matches orthodox-thinking - it's as much a place to learn about economics - including the flaws in it.
When someone asks a question - even if it is obviously homework-related - it's perfectly valid to answer it by pointing out the flaws with the concept they are learning - and that doesn't impede anybody else from answering their question from an orthodox view.0 -
Advertisement
-
I have not. I've been extremely specific for a very important reason. I have not said anything about 'heterodox economic theory'. I have spoken only about the specific example regarding demand and supply. I am not writing off 'heterodox economic theory', I am dismissing that specific example.Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »Comparing heterodox economic theory to magic is ridiculous. Some of the worlds most influential economic theorists put forward heterodox ideas all the time.
Dismissing that specific example does not mean that I dismiss 'heterodox economic theory', it means I'm dismissing that specific example.
I assume that is now clear?
Perhaps you might ask that question of the person who instigated the thread about demand and supply? I wonder what their intention was when trying to find out about it.Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »Limiting discussion to "main stream" economics basically limits it to Keynesian and Neoclassical discussions, so what's the point in having the forum at all?
I'm not 'defender of status quo', but if you want to provide reasoning and evidence behind anything which directly attacks the status quo, you need it to be strong evidence.Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »You might as well just put a .gif of a circle jerk between Krugman, Barnett and Reinhart and be done with it.
Heterodox doesn't mean wrong. It doesn't in hard science and it definitely doesn't in soft social sciences.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence
More appeals to authority?Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »I studied under Charles Engel at WSU Madison and even he would chortle into his whisky at the idea that economic discussion should be limited at all.
He is dogmatic in his viewpoint but was still open to discussion of any economic school and even conceding that there was usefulness in exploring all of them as even the "most wrong" schools of thought have grains of brilliance in them.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement