A Critique of Rational Expectations That Does Not Go Far Enough

This article is critical of an attempt to demean the macroeconomics that has been dominant in Chicago and elsewhere in the "freshwater" economics departments. It argues that too much credit is given to the freshwater crowd by comparing the Copernican revolution that was a step forward but also an inadequate description of reality.

I think that the first comment to this article provides an even better critique of rational expectations theory and the failed attempts to quantify human behavior and the complex sets of interactions that define the real economy. Inanimate objects do not have intentions. They just do what they have programed by nature to do. It isn't always easy to figure out the laws that they follow, but it would be impossible if they could change their minds and follow their own laws. Economics which depends upon understanding human behavior and the behavior of evolving institutions will never be like the physical sciences. It is probably a mistake to use the physical sciences as a model, especially when there is such resistance to the use of evidence to disconfirm accepted theories.