The TPM Cafe discussion of Chris Hayes' article on heterodox economist is very interesting, but seems to be conflating a few different things. There's one question as to whether herd-think and job pressures and social influences subtly suppress heterodox work and lead to a misleading impression of the general findings of economists. And then there's another, which Chris went into in his article, as to whether the neoclassical model is a proven failure, and must now be replaced by something different.
That's a much sharper critique, and one that requires more evidentiary support than I'm currently seeing. Indeed, I find myself in line with Tyler Cowen's request "to see a simple list [of failures and rejected, but correct, theses] and start the debate there." There's no doubt that economics, like any other profession, has its sacraments, protects it orthodoxies, and exhibits group-think -- but those tendencies have, in my read, manifested more in the emphasis of certain conclusions over others (free trade boosterism over Dani Rodrik and Alan Blinder style concerns) than in the entire profession hewing to an outdated and insufficient intellectual framework. I'd be willing to believe differently, but I'm not seeing the proof. The profession actually seems quite flexible and adaptive when you dig into it. It's the public face which is somewhat less expressive.
