Main Page Contact Register Log In

Frequently not. I don't think the intro textbook in my field contains a single study published in the last 30 years. Just think of how many math departments still don't teach Bayesian analysis at the undergraduate level. I recall one economist commenting that they don't care much if graduate school applicants have a economics degree because graduate level research is so different from undergrad. It seems they keep going until the textbook gets filled up with useful, replicated studies, and then progress mostly stops to avoid offending anyone. Take a look at the comments at psychology today on an author's decision to leave out an awful and completely useless study from psychology textbooks. Now imagine the uproar if he removed a useful, replicable, and important study because he found a more recent study that he decided was more important.

Psychology Today post:

I don't know about the state of economics but even if you say that it takes more than 20 years for new basics to reach the textbooks that still suggests to me that change in textbooks comes from basic research and not from applied research.

I have studied biology and the field makes progress in the sense that it discovers new facts that make it into textbooks.

To the extend that your charge that economists don't make progress in the sense of producing new knowledge that makes it into their textbooks we have to ask whether economics is really a science. Thomas Kuhn defined making progress as the critical element that distinguishes science from nonscience.
Replies (0)