Sure, there can be a pragmatic justification of using models that work even if they don’t likely correspond to reality. The workability would be more a matter of luck than of deep understanding of what’s going on. But that’s my point about technological applications.
The question is whether the models of orthodox economics work in that sense. Of if they do work in making predictions, would those predictions have to be attributed to scientific rigor rather than just to common sense? You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand the basics of how economies work.
And there’s a confusion here that I’m suggesting there should be no such thing as economics. I’m not saying economies shouldn’t be studied at all. I’m questioning the exaggerated claims of orthodox economics’ scientific status. I’ll be writing something directly on that question, in this series I’m doing on economics. I’m less critical of behavioural and sociological economics. The focus for me is on the pretensions of the orthodox, hyper-mathematical kind.
