I wanted to add that we shouldn't forget the original context of this discussion. That is, we should remember that the reason why Alan Blinder is crucial in this discussion is _only_ that he received so much flack from the orthodoxy (going against official academic and/or scientific standards, BTW).
Similarly, a crucial reason why the behaviorists get so much attention on pen-l is that people like Leavitt attack them. But IMHO, they contribute more than Blinder does. On 10/6/07, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > raghu wrote: > > What I have been trying to > > say is Alan Blinder and the behaviorists are no Copernicus. > > I agree with that. (Blinder is also no Dan Quayle.) But I doubt that > anyone on pen-l thinks that AB and the Bs are in the same league as > Copernicus. My point, however, is that it's typically events in the > real -- non-academic -- world that lead to real "paradigm shifts." > It's not the brilliance or tenacity of the thinker. > > The role of the behaviorists is more a matter of mice gnawing at the > edges of the neoclassical research program. Blinder is more a guy > who's hearkening back to the old versions of neoclassical ideology > (before the neoliberal age), ideas of the sort pushed by James Tobin > and the like. > -- > Jim Devine / "The truth is at once less sinister and more dangerous." > -- Naomi Klein. > -- Jim Devine / "The truth is at once less sinister and more dangerous." -- Naomi Klein.
