Search Episodes
Listen, Share, & Support
Listen to the latest episode
Subscribe via iTunes
Subscribe via RSS
Become a fan
Follow on Twitter

Support Us:

Please consider making a donation to help make this podcast possible. Any contribution, great or small, helps tremendously!

 
Subscribe to E-Mail Updates

Related Readings
  • Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life
    Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life
    by Massimo Pigliucci
  • Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk
    Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk
    by Massimo Pigliucci
  • Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
    Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
    by Massimo Pigliucci
Monday
Mar062017

RS 179 - Dani Rodrik on “Is economics more art or science?”

Release date: March 5th, 2017

Dani Rodrik

This episode features Harvard economist Dani Rodrik, talking about the epistemology of economics: Are there any general "laws" of economics that we can be really confident in? Do economists discard models if the data doesn't support them? And why do economists disagree with each other?

Dani's Pick: "The Great Transformation" by Karl Polanyi

Edited by Brent Silk

Music by Miracles of Modern Science

 

Full Transcripts 

Reader Comments (9)

Thanks for the informative podcast. Maybe your sponsor would be willing to pay for a link on the page here as well? Also I appreciate having the speaker's pick listed, but what about a link to his latest book?
March 15, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterMark Dwyer
I enjoyed this episode as well, and found the epistemology discussion quite interesting. Well done, all involved :-)

Regards,

John
March 20, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJohn Michael Zorko
why not think of economics as engineering rather than science?
https://rwer.wordpress.com/2017/03/26/your-model-is-consistent-so-what/
March 27, 2017 | Unregistered Commenterdmf
Finally a useful and important topic but with only a representative of the degenerative program of neo-classical economics. Despite the talk about these theories applying in specific circumstances. How about an honest talk about how they are so unreal that they never apply anywhere at anytime and how these economists are nothing more than shills for the current banks and power structures in government. Why don't you get someone like Steve Keen, Michael Hudson, or other heterodox economists on? Steve Keen goes over all the main approaches in a lecture series on YouTube. How about discussing on what all approaches cannot agree on which is energy consumption and the environment? I do not just mean carbon emissions but the demand for energy in a capitalist economy. Capitalism is based on exponential growth but the planet is not able to dissipate the heat from the energy used fast enough. So capitalist economics will result in about 400 years, an Earth surface temperature of the boiling point of water!!
April 3, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterMark
Economics: Science or Cult?

https://youtu.be/B5Ax-iVcEJY
April 6, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterMark
Thank you for sharing the post! Opinion of an economist is very great and helpful for me.
http://www.picaram.com/
April 11, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterKelly
Another way to make a familiar dish. I think it will be very attractive. I will do it for my family's dinner. Thanks for your guidance a lot!
April 22, 2017 | Unregistered Commenterhotmail login
Putting my Austrian-school hat on, it is useful to point out at least one fundamental truth, which is that "humans act". That means they have purposes which they pursue with their individual knowledge and using scarce means, that they have choices and trade-offs, that there are individual preferences.
This may seem tautological, just like Descartes's "I think", but it is a surprisingly powerful way to discover fundamental laws of economics.

Such knowledge is both confident (in that it is derived logically from propositions that are undeniable without self-contradiction) and humble (it provides no knowledge of individuals preferences, it gives no quantitative estimation, and unlike physical sciences it provides no universal constants).
This is probably not all the knowledge that can be built in economics, but it forms a strong core of a-priori. And I would argue that the rest of what constitutes modern economics is quite soft indeed.
May 17, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJulien Couvreur

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.