Jump to content

Talk:Austrian school of economics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 208.54.40.237 (talk) at 16:51, 10 January 2012 (→‎Is this a reliable source?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Please put new text at the end of this page, not on top or in older edits!

Stop deleting my talk page entries, asshole.

I will continue re-adding this talk page entry every time you delete it. How cute that you think you can ban me for expressing my opinion; it must make you feel powerful to have "control" over something in your life, even if it's just a stupid article on a web site somewhere. Threaten to ban me for correcting your article? OK, I will then switch to another IP and add it again, at 4 AM, at 2 AM, at 11 PM, at every random hour of the day until you get tired of being a child.

Now, on to the subject at hand: I'm sick and tired of reading statements in this article which basically state some variation of the following: "Mainstream economics regard this economic theory as complete bullshit." Thanks, I TOTALLY couldn't weigh the evidence and arrive at my own conclusion on that, without having it fed to me by the Wiki Nazi, who obviously can't bear to see differing opinions on this.

These statements have NO place in this article and I will continue to delete them every time I see them. You'll never know when it'll be. If you really want these statements to remain, you'll spend the rest of your life re-adding them. I'm self employed and I have a lot of free time. Don't believe me? Try me :)


Is this a reliable source?

http://mises.org/daily/3155

I can't think of any reason why it isn't. One editor appears to think so. I'd like to hear his/her and any others' case on the matter. I'll delete this section soon if there are no arguments given against the reliability of this source.

From WP:PARITY: "if an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review." The Lugvig von Mises Institute's publication lacks peer review?

The Mises website is not a rs for the article. TFD (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WHY? Byelf2007 (talk) 14 November 2011

Does having a Robert Murphy opinion follow a Paul Krugman opinion violate NPOV?

I can't think of any reason why it does. One editor appears to think it does. I'd like to hear his/her and any others' case on the matter. I'll delete this section soon if there are no arguments given for the affirmative of this question.

From WP:UNDUE: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

Just because it says "Don't give the same weight of moon-hoaxism to the conventional story" doesn't mean it also means "don't have arguments by non-economics nobel prize winners follow those by economics nobel prize winners."

Is Robert Murphy not notable?

I can't think of any reason why he isn't. One editor appears to think so. I'll delete this section soon if there are no arguments given for the affirmative of this question.

In order to say someone isn't notable, you must provide a standard for notability. If you're going with wikipedia's then you must apply it to the issue in question.

Is AS theory on par with holocaust denialism?

And just in case,

Is WP:YESPOV's example of the relative popularities of holocaust-denialism and the conventional assessment of what happened really in class with the relative popularities of ABCT and refutation of ABCT? I don't think so.

From WP:PARITY: "There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." Byelf2007 (talk) 14 November 2011

ABCT is not taken seriously, and in fact is not a part of the important debates in current academic scholarship, and this article shouldn't mislead readers to the shape of that debate. This is exactly the situation that WP:YESPOV is addressing. We have a Nobel laureate expressing the views of almost all the economics profession about ABCT, and it is treated a just one viewpoint, and the article gives equal weight to the views of an 'adjunct scholar' of Mises Institute (a non-educational institute dedicated to the promotion of Austrian views). This gives "apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view" which is against the WP:NPOV policy. LK (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already responded to all of these arguments. This is the article ABOUT the Austrian School, and, therefore, we need to include AS responses to criticisms. Again, from WP:UNDUE: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."
Furthermore, you are correct that we should have parity for a "TINY MINORITY VIEW" and the examples that are given from YESPOV and NPOV are "claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar." and "Holocaust denial, or claims the Apollo moon landing was faked." You have to argue that ABCT is ON PAR with these views. Clearly, they are not. ABCT gets debated in the academic world. Does it happen often? No, but Krugman writes criticisms of ABCT or similar views every few months, as do many other popular mainstream economists. The same cannot be said for the examples wikipedia gives.
I have already explained this multiple times. You need to actually read the things I've written and respond to those arguments instead of repeating the same assertions I've already responded to. Byelf2007 (talk) 14 November 2011
I don't really want to get into a debate about whether the Mises Institute is a reliable source (already been there and done that). But I do want to point out that both the Walter Block source and Robert Murphy source are offering almost identical explanations to the labor asymmetry issue raised by Krugman and fleshed out a bit by Hummel in the article. So having both maybe undue weight.--Dark Charles (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LK's edits

One

LK's version: "Austrian economists generally hold that experiments in economics are unreliable as human actors cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions. Mainstream economists generally hold that mathematical models and empirical methods can accurately model and test economic behavior."

BigK HeX/my version: "Austrian economists generally hold that testability in economics and mathematical modeling of a market are virtually impossible because modeling a market relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions. Supporters of using models of market behavior to analyze and test economic theory argue that economists are able to accurately determine individual preferences."

1. "Testibility in economics" is more precise than "experiments in economics" because we're talking about whether or not you can test economic theory with experiments, not just have experiments involving economics.

2. We're talking about modeling a market, so that should be explicit.

3. Mathematical modeling isn't necessarily unreliable, it's just very difficult.

4. We want "Supporters of using models of market behavior to analyze" in there to make what we're talking about a little more easy to get for the reader (it's more explicit).

5. People trying to model economic behavior may use any number of methods, not necessarily just the two listed (we also don't have a source here, so it's best to be as generic as possible).

I believe both BigK and myself support my version rather than yours. I'll wait for other opinions on this issue. LK (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As to the experimentation text: It is an Austrian claim -- not a fact -- that human actors "cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their actions." It will not be stated as a fact. BigK HeX (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make the relevant change. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011
My change was just fine. You do not WP:OWN this article, such that everyone has to go through you. BigK HeX (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a fucking dipshit. You must be the same asshole who keeps reverting my edits because I'm sick of this article being heavily biased against Austrian Economics. Nothing in either of those paragraphs above asserts this claim to be "fact." It's obviously a BELIEF that Austrian Economics hold.
How have I claimed that I do or acted as such? Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011

To the extent that mathematical modeling relies on graphs and lines, it is unreliable .... the supply and demand curve lines would have you believe that for an infinitely small decrease in supply there will be an infinitely small increase in price ... however anyone can figure out this is a fantasy; in the U.S. the smallest denomination is a penny. The simple fact is that human action doesn't exist on a mathematical continuum... and theories that in fact rely on these continuums to prove their point are inherently incorrect. The best example of this are theories relying on graphs showing the tangent to a curve that intersect the curve at just 1 point; the problem here is that the whole theory relies on and assumes a line of indefinite points to depict human action - once you start putting gaps in the line (such as a step function), the theory will fall apart. 69.137.7.171 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two

"and of their aversion to the use of mathematics and statistics." This strikes me as weasel words. Are they ALWAYS averse to the use of math and statistics? Furthermore, it simply isn't true that AS economists rarely put stats in their essays--it happens all the time. We shouldn't give the reader the impression that AS is the "anti math and stats" school of economics because it simply isn't true.

This is in the source cited. Did you read the quote in the cite? LK (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't mean AS actually have an "aversion to the use of mathematics and statistics". I can change lede to reflect this perception. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011
Who cares if they are "always averse? How does that change a single thing about them being significantly averse to the use of econometrics? BigK HeX (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. The claim is that they are averse, which suggests they are always averse. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011
Unless a person is illiterate, the claim is that they are AVERSE. You and you alone are the one substituting some "always avoid" meaning. The wording is an accurate reflection of the source, as LK had it. BigK HeX (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I say "Bob is averse to spiders", aren't you going to assume he's always averse to spiders? Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011
Yeah, but since I know the meaning of averse, that isn't the problem you seem to think it is. Averse does NOT mean "always avoid without fail." BigK HeX (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know what averse means. My point is that the sentence as is implies they're averse to using mathematics and statistics for EVERYTHING, as in "use of mathematics and statistics [end of sentence, without any additional context]". The clear implication is that they're averse the use of mathematics and statistics for whatever, even including arguing things like the recession of 1920 ended quickly because of a lack of government intervention (and then they start citing their statistics). This happens all the time with AS essays. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
Again ... you write as if averse means "avoid without fail." Just because Austrians use math occasionally is not evidence that Austrians aren't averse to its use. BigK HeX (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the sentence, as is, implies that AS economists are averse to the use of mathematics and statistics IN GENERAL, not just FOR STUDYING ECONOMICS. And, it's not true that they use stats "occasionally" for studying economics anyway. Go ahead and read Mises Institute articles on contemporary economic developments and see how often they cite statistics. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011

Three and Four

I'm not sure what's wrong with the Murphy links. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011

This is discussed in the section above. LK (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Also, from WP:VERIFY--"Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form)" "In general, the BEST [emphasis mine] sources [not necessarily the only sources] have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments" And from WP:Identifying reliable sources--"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts OR [emphasis mine] with no editorial oversight."
So how do these links not meet criteria? None of them have a reputation for being inaccurate. The murphy site may be questionable, but the Mises Institute certainly has a professional structure. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011
You're seriously asking how a little-known self-published blog post has a reputation for fact-checking and analyzing arguments? BigK HeX (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a blog, it's an institute--it doesn't just publish online, it's also publishes it's materials in periodicals that get mailed out.
Regardless, a blog, as I understand it, is just a site with info that gets updated regularly (I might be wrong about this). Anyway, I'll refer you to the next section of this page. Also, you seem to be implying that if a blog is little know, then it simply MUST NOT be able to have a reputation for fact-checking and analyzing arguments among those who are familiar with it. I don't see how this is the case. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011
Who cares what Mises does with its articles? The source you want to use is a Mises Daily BLOG post. Stick to discussing that, instead of red herrings. BigK HeX (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You said "You're seriously asking how a little-known self-published blog post has a reputation for fact-checking and analyzing arguments?" The implication of this seems to me to be that a "little know blog post" [I removed the self-published one] cannot have a reputation for fact-checking and analyzing arguments. Not only is this obviously not true, I was also pointing out that it isn't necessarily limited to the internet. If you're saying anything on the internet can't be reliable, then this would mean something that isn't well know that was originally not published online becomes unreliable the moment it gets online. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
As to the Murphy bit ... the WP:BURDEN is on you to show that his little-known blog post passes RS. Even beyond that, one would have to be extremely careful in using it to avoid violating NPOV with such a non-notable source. BigK HeX (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is it non-notable? Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
HOW IS IT NOTABLE? Stop trying to shift the burden of proof, and ask people to prove a negative. BigK HeX (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not shifting the burden, because I've already explained why I think it is. You, however, have not provided any arguments in response. Apparently you didn't read the part where I said it's notable because Paul Krugman (very notable) wrote about it in the New York times (very notable). This therefore makes the post very notable. Do you think this fails to make it notable? If so, why? Please read my comments before posting. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011

On the Mises Institute

The Mises Institute has about 300+ contributors, so I can't imagine why that isn't enough for peer review. It's currently publishing several periodicals and has been for years. Its alexa rank for the US is 3,535--pretty solid. Their articles are well cited. They have neither are poor reputation for accuracy (in terms of facts, not opinions) nor a lack of editorial oversight. I don't see how this can be properly characterized as a run-of-the-mill blog. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011

Find me any economist reviewing the "Sushi Model" theory that Murphy proposes in that blog post. BigK HeX (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/great-leaps-backward/ Wow, that took me, like, 10 seconds. Do you think Krugman has a good reputation? Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
For me, the question is not whether Mises blog entries are reliable sources (marginally acceptable on Austrian views), but rather how is it being presented in this article. Keep in mind the WP:YESPOV admonition about giving apparent parity to majority and small minority views. LK (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind WP:YESPOV's examples: [denialism] and "claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar." Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
So...? BigK HeX (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, for the 100th time, you have to demonstrate that AS economic theory as unpopular within economics as holocaust denialism within the study of history or as Earth=flat view within the scientific community to object to having AS argument follow a mainstream one on these grounds. Please stop trolling. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
No. We don't have to prove any such equivalence. Nor is that ever implied by the NPOV policy. You're making things up that aren't in the policy .... for the 100th time. NOWHERE in the policy does it say that POV only applies to things as egregious as Holocaust Denialism -- your claim about WP policy is nonsensical. BigK HeX (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then what would be the POINT of those examples? You're claiming that a "sufficiently minority view" by YOUR standards apply to AS theory. But this isn't your wiki. The Wikipedia policy is that this applies to THEIR examples of superminority views, hence the need for equivalence. Otherwise, you could use this objection against a 45% view within the scientific community (it is, a minority viewpoint after all). But what if someone said "No, the cut off point is 30%" or "Let's have this apply to things which are as unpopular as the notion that Shakespeare didn't actually write all those books"? Are you going to argue with them about where the cut off point should be? No, because this is Wikipedia, and it has given you the examples you MUST work with because it is THEIR site with THEIR standards. If you don't like these examples, then, by all means, go start your own wiki. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
I have no qualms with those EXAMPLES. Your silly mischaracterization of them is the troublesome part. You have a problematically deficient understanding of WP policy if you don't grasp that WP:UNDUE applies to EVERYTHING, even "45%" minority views. BigK HeX (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So where is the part on that page that says that having a 45% view follow a 55% view is undue weight? Come to think of it, how would we ever write an article on a debate about something if this were the case? Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
RE: "where is the part on that page that says that having a 45% view follow a 55% view is undue weight"
This question is so nonsensical that it can only come from someone who doesn't understand the policy.
ANYTHING can be written with undue weight .... even a "49%"-"51%" viewpoint, and our duty under NPOV policy is to make sure we minimize this from occurring. In this case, pretty obviously, given some little mentioned self-published blog post from an academic who receives little attention from the relevant academic community versus a magazine article from a Nobel prize economist, the two shouldn't be presented as if there were no significant difference in the general regard of each writing. BigK HeX (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because one follows another doesn't suggest that there isn't a significant difference in the general regard of the two--only that both have sufficient notability. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
That's EXACTLY what it suggests to a reader when no further details are given. BigK HeX (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. There's no rule that you can't have a little-known article follow a well-known one, but that having a little-known one follow another little-known one is okay. There are, however, rules about whether or not an article has SUFFICIENT notability. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
Yes. There ARE rules. They are the NPOV rules. A reader should NOT come away from an article that discusses conflicting perspectives with the impression that there are two roughly equal opinions if they are NOT roughly equal. Why do you act like you don't know this or that you care?? BigK HeX (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the only example of this that the rules provide are between a "supermajority" and a "superminority/fringe". I have already gone over their examples of fringe many times. If you cannot establish an equivalency between AS theory and their examples, then you have no objection. Byelf2007 (talk) 21 November 2011
Your evidence that Mises Daily blogs are peer-reviewed is Krugman responding about 3 years later. Fascinating.... BigK HeX (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really, dude? No, I obviously did not post Krugman's response as evidence that it's peer-reviewed. I did because of YOUR challenge to me to "Find me any economist reviewing the "Sushi Model" theory that Murphy proposes in that blog post", which I did, because I know how to use google. There is no indication that I did this to demonstrate that Mises Institute is peer reviewed. My evidence that it is peer review is that the Mises Institute is that they have an editor (http://mises.org/faculty.aspx) and their contributors are scholars--they read what gets posted and send objections to the material presented if they have any. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
So.... back to the RS problem, you have provided zero evidence that the Mises Daily blogs have any meaningful peer-review. BigK HeX (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Please stop making assertions without arguments. HOW have I, to your standards, failed to demonstrate that it is sufficiently peer-reviewed? I have repeatedly asked you to justify your assertions with arguments. Mere assertions don't count as argumentation. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
You failed to show Mises blogs are peer-reviewed by .... failing to show there exists any peer-review process. Just because you posted words, doesn't mean you actually showed anything. You seem to think that merely typing a response equates to meeting a burden of proof. It does not, and here, you have not met that burden. BigK HeX (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the relevant page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources): "If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." First, this says "generally" so it isn't always necessary that it's been preliminarily vetted by one or more scholars. Second, the fact that Mises Institute has an editor is sufficient evidence that articles are always preliminarily vetted by at least one scholar. You may object that we don't know for sure that this takes place, but that criticism can be used against any article. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
....and, again, the RS issue is topped by the immense NPOV problem of using such a non-notable blog post. BigK HeX (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're not explaining why it isn't notable. Please stop trolling. By the way, again, Paul Krugman, writing for the New York Times, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, author of many books, and arguably the most well-read economist alive today, has written about the Sushi Post from Mises Institute. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
Calling another editor a troll is violation of WP:POLITE. Please don't do that. LK (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blog gets one whole mention (from a guy who the blog insults personally), and apparently that is guaranteed notability for you. I'm done responding to these outrageous claims. BigK HeX (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and you challenged me to "Find me any economist reviewing the "Sushi Model" theory that Murphy proposes in that blog post". Why offer me this challenge if that wasn't sufficient notability for you? To deliberately waste my time?
Do you think that Paul Krugman, writing for the New York Times, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, author of many books, and arguably the most well-read economist alive today, writing about the post is not sufficient grounds for notability? If this is the case, why is this case? Yet again, you've made an assertion with no argumentation. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
WTF? YOU made all these grand claims about Mises Institute peer review ["I can't imagine why that isn't enough for peer review"], as if to suggest that even the Mises.org Daily blogs are peer-reviewed. Only then did I challenge you to find one of these peers that reviewed Murphy's blog post. Pretty clearly, you haven't found any evidence that peer review is conducted on those Mises Daily blog posts. BigK HeX (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already said, from the relevant page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources): "If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." First, this says "generally" so it isn't always necessary that it's been preliminarily vetted by one or more scholars. Second, the fact that Mises Institute has an editor (who goes over everything posted on the site) is sufficient evidence that articles are always preliminarily vetted by at least one scholar. You may object that we don't know for sure that this takes place, but that criticism can be used against any article.
I'm not sure what you have in mind. Am I supposed to provide a video showing the article getting peer reviewed? Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
There is no need for you to throw these ridiculous questions, just because you cannot meet the burden of proof. On Wikipedia, blogs are generally regarded as unreliable sources (for good reason). If you want to challenge that presumption, then YOU find any evidence that would convince a reasonable editor that the presumption is incorrect. BigK HeX (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm not really sure if it's even appropriate to say "burden of proof"--of course I can't prove that any article in any newspaper got peer reviewed unless I was there and filming it. I've asked you to provide your standard for a burden of proof (or standard of sufficient evidence). You haven't. This means that you can always say my evidence is insufficient. Your answer thus far is only "prove that the peer-review is occurring." without saying HOW I'm supposed to do this. You've said a video is going to far. So how far is far enough? How is the Mises Institute saying they have an editor not sufficient?
I happen to agree with the wikipedia guidelines that we assume that a blog is reliable if it has a history of being reliable. Both Mises Institute and New York Times are reliable--you can scan through either of their articles and find that the vast majority of their fact-statements are true. This doesn't mean, of course, that the New York Times never gets anything thing wrong and has to make corrections. Our standard for reliability can't be "prove that the peer review is actually going on for each article in question". If we were to do that, then we'd pretty much have to have either video of every peer review that occurs or at least a great many witnesses that we have testimony from. If you think a New York Times article is reliable, then can you prove that the New York Times actually has an editor? Can you prove that the peer review is always taking place?
You might say "The New York Times has a good reputation and Mises doesn't, in part because it's not as well known". This would make we wonder what you regard as a sufficient reputation. Byelf2007 (talk) 21 November 2011
Peer review has a specific meaning and cannot be used to describe the Mises Institute or Krugman's editorials for that matter. TFD (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You're providing no argument. Again, from the relevant page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources): "If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." First, this says "generally" so it isn't always necessary that it's been preliminarily vetted by one or more scholars. Second, the fact that Mises Institute has an editor (who goes over everything posted on the site) is sufficient evidence that articles are always preliminarily vetted by at least one scholar. You may object that we don't know for sure that this takes place, but that criticism can be used against any article. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
Again, you do not understand what peer-review means, read the linked article. TFD (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the peer-review page says. What matters is what the page on reliable sources says because that's what this dispute is about. If I've misinterpreted the RULES, you can explain to me why. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011

Perhaps this discussion should take place on Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute.--S. Rich (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Math and Stats

On this,[1] are we really arguing whether AS rejects mathematics and statistics? It's in their own literature and in all reliable sources about AS methodology. LK (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with respect to EVALUATING ECONOMIC THEORY. If you have it just be "use of math + stats", then that implies that they're against the use of math and stats, period. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
Pretty much a direct quote from multiple sources easily trumps your WP:OR or your faulty understanding, whichever it may be. BigK HeX (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're saying. Just because some people claim that something is true doesn't mean we should present it as true--the evidence is what matters. See my other comments on this matter. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
Wait... are you saying you deleted the text, when you would have agreed with it, if you merely added something like "in economics"? BigK HeX (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. If you just added "in studying economics", it's still false, because AS theorists uses stats in their articles all the time. If you change it to "in analyzing economic theory", then that's fine, but we already have that in the article. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011

Use of the adjective "Mainstream"

This entry is extremely biased against the Austrian School. As evidence, I submit that the adjective "mainstream" is used in contrast to it 23 (!) times. Allow the public to form their own opinions without all the spin. It's shameful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.186.164 (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Whom It May Concern

I'm not a "wiki head" so I may be doing this wrong. I think the guy below may even be referring to my edits. Well, I'm sick and tired of reading this article only to be told 3-4 times that "mainstream economists think this is wrong." Who gives a flying f--k what "mainstream economists" think? The ONLY situation in which "mainstream economists" should be mentioned in this article, is when their ideas and policies are being directly compared/contrasted, in an unbiased manner, to the Austrian School. Starting off a subsection with an assertion like "mainstream economists think this is all wrong" is unnecessary and UNHELPFUL. I'll check back on this article periodically and I will continue deleting these type of statements whenever I see them. Continue reverting my edits if you like; you'll be at it a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.40.237 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please use a more constructive language then this rant? Do you have any proposals for a rewritten text instead of the one you don't like? Night of the Big Wind talk 16:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the latest (roughly) "you can't put AS argument after Keynesian argument" edits

To Whom It May Concern

I'm not a "wiki head" so I may be doing this wrong. I think the guy below may even be referring to my edits. Well, I'm sick and tired of reading this article only to be told 3-4 times that "mainstream economists think this is wrong." Who gives a flying f--k what "mainstream economists" think? The ONLY situation in which "mainstream economists" should be mentioned in this article, is when their ideas and policies are being directly compared/contrasted, in an unbiased manner, to the Austrian School. Starting off a subsection with an assertion like "mainstream economists think this is all wrong" is unnecessary and UNHELPFUL. No, it doesn't get any more helpful by attaching a few random names I haven't heard of ("Well Joe Duffy thinks....") to the assertion. If your sources aren't being used to make an actual argument (and they shouldn't, in an ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY), they are unwanted here.

I'll check back on this article periodically and I will continue deleting these type of heavily biased statements whenever I see them. Continue reverting my edits if you like; you'll be at it a long time.

"Stop my vandalism"? You make me sick. I'm fighting for transparency and unbiased articles. Only on Wikipedia would that be considered "vandalism." Adding statements to the talk page isn't considered "vandalism", and I'll thank you to stop deleting mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.40.237 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, for this declaration of intent to editwar to enforce your version, I will protect the page to prevent you from editing it. Please consider methods of dispute resolution to resolve the issue. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austrian_school_of_economics&oldid=470638862"