================= HES POSTING ================= 
 
Greetings, 
 
Since I introduced the term "agenda" into the discussion of Stigler, let me 
explain what I had in mind. 
 
The hint I offered was that Stigler, and others in the "Chicago" school of 
industrial organization, have in mind a laissez-faire attitude toward the 
economy in general, and toward industrial structure and conduct in 
particular. This is at least the case for Stigler, whom I have encountered 
most often in the IO field.  Again, this is my impression, as a non-expert 
in history of thought. It seems to me that he is akin to libertarians in 
seeking a minimalist government. 
 
What's wrong with that? Well, nothing, I suppose--unless one lets that 
political agenda unduly influence the selection of a research methodology 
and/or results in order to confirm the validity of the agenda.  I suppose 
this raises questions about whether knowledge is value-free (I seriously 
doubt that it is), or about the accuracy of the description of what passes 
for "scientific process" (and I doubt that, too).  Mary Schweitzer's 
posting on the sociology of knowledge, and embedding Stigler and Chicago 
within the time in which they wrote, seems to me to be interesting--but, 
again, this sort of research is outside my field. 
 
In this context, it might be worthwhile to consider whether someone with 
such an overt political agenda could advance economic "science" enough to 
deserve a Nobel prize.  Without denigrating Stigler the man or researcher 
(never met him, only read some articles for dissertation and other 
research), the issue troubles me.  The fact that many "Chicago" economists 
have recently won Nobel prizes is an interesting phenomenon. 
 
I teach at a small liberal arts college--I'm the only economist here.  I 
occasionally bump into natural science folks, who give me static about how 
economics has a much smaller reality check than their disciplines. 
Economists can theorize forever, and win rewards for it, without ever 
having their work checked for validity by empirical evidence --they say.  I 
try to tell these colleagues that this isn't completely true, that 
economics does have reality checks.  But "Chicago" economists seem to defy 
my statement. Most annoying. 
 
John Dodge 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]