Why is Bob Murphy, and his criticism of mainstream economic pseudoscience (mathi

Why is Bob Murphy, and his criticism of mainstream economic pseudoscience (mathiness, logic) less influential than we’d expect?

Because no criminal gives up his crimes, nor immoralist his immorality, nor liar his lies, nor parasite its host without greater incentive to do so than not.

Human beings are neither Hobbesian, Lockean, or Rousseauian, but amoral. All evidence from all history, all history of legal proceedings, and all scientific research, demonstrates man is amoral and only as moral as he must be, and maximizes immorality whenever he can justify it.

The contemporary crisis begun with Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Bohr, then Keynes, Gramsci, Marcuse, Rez, Kelsen, Dworkin, Friedan, Steinem, Stiglitz and Krugman consists of little more than female tendency of feels over reals justified by magical thinking applied to pseudoscience.

So we have tolerated the institutionalization and weaponization of the female means of seduction into false promise of freedom from the laws of nature that every mother uses to sedate her children, and for all intents and purposes legalized social, economic, and political Fraud.

While I’m hostile to the abuse of the Austrian economic method by Mises and Rothbard, the point is that only the austrians including Mises, intuited the problem in math and science, that was the intuitionistic and operationalist revolution – that failed especially in economics.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t occur to anyone that the intuitionistic and operational movement (revolution) was identifying the difference between symbolic mathematics as sophistry, vs computational mathematics as science. As such we lost a century to pseudo-math -> pseudoscience.

This is the reason the ‘austrians’, or at least the Mengerian and Hayekian austrians, were correct in discovering the logic of social science, while Chicago discovered, economic insurance, and the Keynesians just restated old fashioned monetary fraud.