So now that you know that “almost all” those criticisms are “disappointing” because “the author systematically misunderstands economics,” “betrays a deep ignorance of economic theory and practice,” and hasn’t gotten past a few chapters in an introductory economics textbook, you nevertheless maintain that economists should take those criticisms seriously and shouldn’t ignore them. And you’re saying those outsiders “understand the field well enough for their criticisms to matter” (as I put it initially), even though you discovered their criticisms to be so grossly deficient.

That sounds contradictory, doesn’t it?

Or are you saying economists should take them seriously only to confirm what you confirmed, which is that they shouldn’t have taken them seriously after all since the criticisms are likely based on little more than gross ignorance? Judging from the shouted portion of your response, that seems to be the cavil you’re insisting on.

From your perspective, then, you discovered that outsiders’ criticisms of economics aren’t worth reading. Of course, you had to read some to discover that sad fact. But now that you discovered it, based on a representative sample of such criticisms, I take it, you’d assume that most economists feel the same way as you do. At least, you’d recommend that economists not waste their time with what you discovered to be such systematically irrelevant criticisms.

Now, Scientologists may not even be permitted to read outsiders’ objections because they’re members of a full-blown cult. My analogy is thus a limited one. But it points to an intriguing similarity, which is the resulting insularity of your perspective on economics. Built up after what were no doubt frustrating confrontations with outsider criticisms (including mine), that insularity still runs quite contrary to the ideal humanistic open-mindedness someone would need to be a good scientist.

And whether you gave the outsider criticisms a fair shake, or whether you’re dismissing them from a rather reactionary, partisan mindset is an open question, meaning it’s roughly the question that’s been at issue in our discussions.