How is it that schools of economic factions have created rifts where economists cannot bare to be in the same room as one another. Investigation of this question examines fundamental economic theory and identifies the root cause of the rift is the perplexing disconnect between the scientific method and logical testing. Fundamentally, the prime rift is between economists who use deductive reasoning and those who use positive empirical evidence. To illuminate the effect of this rift, this article will disseminate a couple fundamental economic topics under scrutiny: Defining Growth and Forecasting. The resulting differences and history shows strong support for consideration of deductive reasoning over current methodology. The reality is that legitimate theories should channel central debate on the current “given” modern theory is not debated at all, but instead a mainstream economists insist a “bridge” exists today, known as the Neoclassical Synthesis of the 20th century. This has perverted economic thought to the point where debate will not even come under consideration on the fundamental level. Therefore, the Positive Empiricism Approach (See: “scientific”) has inherited a foundation built upon, ironically, a normative nature. Failure of the scientific approach, empirically and logically, proves that mainstream neo-Keynesian economics promotes externalities in waves that deliver far more impact than simply direct practice. The school's influence and has potential to be more destructive potential than any time in history.
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.