Economists defended failed prediction by asserting contradictory claims at once

Evidence

The best evidence that the accusations of failed prediction were so rebarbative that they provoked a triumph of indignation over complacency can be found in the wildly bipolar reactions of economists to the indictment: one coterie insisted that economists were vindicated by the successful predictions of the few and the canny; whereas another insisted instead that good economists never claimed to be able to predict the economy in the first place. Viewed as a totality, this exemplified a larger tendency for the profession as a whole to simultaneously assert A and not-A in response to calumny. — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 697

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Critical Theory faced a double dilemma needing two independent yardsticks. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 2146; Economists’ self-denying neutrality limited their influence on popular political debate — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free…, 125; Many financial economists treat Modigliani-Miller as benchmarks rather than empirical claims — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 390 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• Economists obscuring knowledge during crisis stems from contradicting logics of expertise and market faith #expands (0.85) — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 655
• Empirical failure does not dislodge orthodox economists from their theory #exemplifies (0.80) — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 722
• Economists’ persistence in error needs institutional explanation, not just psychology #expands (0.78) — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 490