Talk:McCloskey critique

Untitled
McCloskey's critique has nothing to do with Godel. Everybody just loves misenterpreting the heck out of Godel I guess, and wayyyy overextrapolating what his theorems say.

Lead
The former Lead begins:
 * The McCloskey critique of post-1940s neo-classical economics is about the allegedly elite arguments, conducted through abstract mathematical models, which are accused of revealing little about the real economy.

The reader might guess that the "McCloskey critique" was a stardardly recognized term. But it is not. A Google Scholar search of "McCloskey critique" yields only 17 hits, from far-ranging sources, including "critiques" of things other than in this article or in above-quoted lead. That rounds to about 1% of hits for M's The Rhetoric of Economics. Similarly, there are 0 hits for The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition (2008). It is strictly a term of art. Then shouldn't "McCloskey critique" closely conform to what M does say in page-specific sources? I believe so. What M primarily inveighed against ("official modernism" -- logical positivism, falsifificationism, & its sterile offspring of formalism).

M is lavish in praising Friedman, Coase, et al. in going beyond modernism in method and in practive and even toward Samuelson in his rhetoric. (He is also very uncharitable on the central importance of Samuualson's "operationsilly meaningful theorems," but that's another matter.)

What follows in sect. 1 of the article is, if correct, inconsistent with the above quoted Lead as to neoclassical economists. Of the 4 economists discussed there, Klein is and Tinbergen was closer to the great Michał Kalecki than to Keynes, who was certainly not neoclassical. McCloskey's target was not neoclassical economics but "official modernist" (read positivist or Popperian) methodology. The rest of the article lacks inline page-specific citation. Repeatedly throughout The Rhetoric of Economics, 2nd edition (1998), McCloskey praises Friedman, Coase, et al. for not following "official modernist" docttine. \

The almost complete lack of inline page-specific citation makes msot of what is in the article of doubtful scholarly value. The list if References is useful.

Anyone who can afford to clean up could start with M's The Rhetoric of Economics 2nd ed. Anything there could be page-cited. Anything not there can be marked & deleted in due course if it isn'tlocated. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC) [Proof-corrected. 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC))


 * I agree, I noted that this was not a standard term as well, and it should probably be merged into the Deirdre McCloskey article. A large criticism of economics article makes sense, however, because there are lots of criticisms coming from all sorts of sides, most of them justified. I'm concerned that in your edits you make things vaguer, Thomas. Your recent revision (diff) does not seem to me an improvement because it substitutes precision (the a priori mathematics) for vagueness about methodology. Similarly, looking at economic reasoning, the first two sentences are way too vague: "Economics as a contemporary discipline relies on rigorous styles of argument,. Various methods and beliefs have influenced development of the subject."


 * Also, economic reasoning was not inherited from logical positivism, which was a movement in the 1930s. Smith was a moral philosopher -- as an Englishman, he leaned heavily empiricist, but the metaphysical debates over empiricism were sort of a separate concern. Certainly economics is, ideally, empiricist, but it would be a stretch to say that its origins lie in empiricist philosophy. Its perhaps most accurate to say that the root of economics lies in the physiocrats, and preceding that, ancient philosophers seemed more economically inclined than early modern philosophers (Spinoza/Leibniz). Hume did some work in economics. Ironically, current economics has more in common with a priori rationalism than empiricism, or at least it has in the past 20-30 years -- this is probably changing. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I know writing this article in a satisfactory way will be tricky. But I think it deserves its own article. That's hard to justify, except for the fact that "McCloskey critique" is a term of art in conversational economics. Possibly that makes it too specialist for the encyclopedia. Hmm, I could see either argument, but I'd argue for its own article. Cretog8 (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, a "a term of art"? ImpIn | (t - c) 06:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "term of art" pretty much means "jargon". In this case, "McCloskey critique" is a shorthand way of making an otherwise complicated point, known to many economists. I notice it come up mostly in regards to statistical significance. Cretog8 (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (One more indent below than corresponding latest omment above.) Thx for above comments.. Let me respond in the order of coments above.


 * (1) If I took something out that needs to be put back in, please do. I would only urge, however, referring to the lead reference for confirmation (or citing an alternative ref.). Words matter of course, and I think that they should not stray far from the source, even if they are better than those of M.  Greater specificity?  By all means, but I believe that the ones in the current lead accurately track the section headings of the fn. 1 ref.  In fairness to McCloskey, I think that the 2nd ed. of  The Rhetoric of Economics, 2nd ed. (1998) should have precedence over the fn. 1 ref. in possibly reflecting more-settled views. On the quoted sentences from the Econ article, let me rrspond elsewhere. It may take a while.  I do take seriously the comment on them.


 * The Lead reference to logical positivism is what M said about the "official modernist" methodology in economics, which M might say "infects" the subject even today.


 * (2) On merger into the McCloskey article, I believe that getting this article better referenced should take precedence over a merger proposal in the intermediate run, division of labor revisited.  I believe that it would make sense to consider sectioning by published work.


 * (3) Perhaps "made-up term" would be clearer, in that "McCloskey critique" does not seem to have a well-defined (jargon) sense (as per top above following indented quotation). Still, it is arguably a convenient term. Unifying elements, charitaby understood, include its use of postmodernism in challenging widely-accepted assumptions, usages, practices, and beliefs  to improve practice & discourse on the subject.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)