Thanks very much, and as usual you make a number of insightful points. Your account of your debate with economists is intriguing, especially since mine with Mr. Hurst has sort of fallen through, like my debate with the other economist who harshly criticized my other two economics articles. Of course, constructive criticism would be fine, but the pattern I'm detecting is emotional defensiveness.

It reminds me of what happens when a TV anchorman or woman is criticized for being part of an industry that's sold-out true journalism. I've seen this happen a number of times with Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, and others. There's just nothing like a calm and collected response from them; instead, they leap to sarcasm and evasion. You can tell these individuals are quite defensive because they have something to hide. Perhaps it's the same with economics.

I'm out on a limb with these criticisms of economics since this is hardly my specialty. But indeed, not everyone is trained as a philosopher to handle criticisms of their field. I mean, if a nonphilosopher criticized philosophy to a philosopher, the nonphilosopher would probably find that the philosopher would one-up her by leveling ten stronger charges against philosophy.

One difference is that philosophers have little to lose, whereas economics is woven more tightly into elite society. Plus, philosophers are taught to try to know themselves, which builds humility.