On the academic side: look, to a first approximation nobody ever admits being wrong about anything. But my sense is that a lot of younger economists are aware, even if they don’t dare say so, that freshwater macro has been a great embarrassment these past four years, and that liquidity-trap Keynesianism has done very well. This will affect future research; it will, over time, break the stranglehold of decadent Lucasian doctrine on the journals.
He doesn’t use the term, but I usually associate this with Kuhnianism, particularly in the way he describes dogmatism. Scientific progress has never been made changing the minds of adherents.The antagonists are far too dogmatic for that and attached to their theories. One theory only “wins” by convincing the audience, which is the next generation of scientists. That’s how we see knowledge progressing in the physical sciences – despite the naive Positivist sentiment that the scientific mind would be convinced solely by prediction and evidence. Ideally maybe [fn1], but never in practice.
And why on earth would we expect economists of all people to be less dogmatic? This is why I think Steven Grenville’s criteria for success in economic debate is a little flawed. If we insisted that an admission of wrongness was a criteria for success in every field of knowledge, then we’d struggle to find one. Certainly not in regard to plate tectonics or the big bang theory where the losers took their views to the grave. Most likely the same will occur between adherents of string theory and quantum loop gravity.
The only problem is that in macro, the view vindicated by evidence is not promoting a new paradigm, but an old one. Perhaps Kuhn should have also written The Structure of Economic Restorations.
[fn1]And by “maybe” I mean no, but that’s a debate for another time.