Why Jay Can't Argue

There's a reason why it's so ridiculously easy to argue with Jay Reding, and it's because he doesn't pay any attention to what you say. For instance, this exchange with him I had this morning, on the subject of the non-science of economics:

Jay: So, an economy is too complex to apply any known model to, but scientists can predict exactly how much the temperature will rise based on nothing but climate modeling… apparently since the science of economics doesn’t agree with your political viewpoints, the science must be wrong.

Me: Economists can’t even agree on whether or not economies are driven by supply or demand - the most basic factual question possible.

That would be like scientists not being able to agree on whether or not electrons moved towards or away from the anode.

It has nothing to do with my political viewpoints - since the “science” of economics doesn’t agree with reality, it’s basically nonsense. I’ve certainly never met a real scientist who takes it at all seriously. It’s just made-up, like philosophy and theology. It’s as relevant to understanding the world as the stats on the front of a Pokemon card. It’s not any kind of science - it’s just a social club for people who couldn’t master rigorous data collection methods to pretend like they’re studying something.

Jay: So apparently since most economists don’t agree with your political viewpoint, then the whole science of economics is obviously wrong.

Is there an echo in here? No, it's just business as usual for the Single Malted Pundit - make assertions, don't listen to rebuttals, cast aspersions, (work yourself up into a) lather, rinse repeat.