Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Economics' predictive failures are better addressed by Lakatosian progressive problem-shifts than by McCloskey's wholesale retreat to rhetorical analysis.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Lakatosian progressive shifts can rationalize endless ad-hoc modifications, making unfalsifiable theories appear scientifically legitimate indefinitely.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
McCloskey rightly identifies that economic persuasion operates through rhetoric regardless; ignoring this just masks how knowledge actually gets accepted.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Economics' persistent predictive failures suggest the problem may be foundational assumptions, not methodology—neither framework adequately addresses this.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Lakatos's framework preserves economics' scientific identity by allowing theoretical evolution within a rational research program structure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
McCloskey's rhetorical turn risks dissolving economics into literary criticism, abandoning empirical constraints that distinguish science from persuasion.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Problem-shifts show how economics progresses despite failures—explaining anomalies through auxiliary hypotheses is how mature sciences develop.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.