Economists don’t have the methodological and conceptual toolkit needed for appreciation of FMD’s scientific and historical significance.

• They don’t know what they don’t know.
  • They’re not methodologists and don’t know what constitutes good theory.
  • They never read CWL 3, pages 3-172 and 490-97 and, thus, they never studied the canons of empirical method, especially the Canon of Parsimony and the Canon of Complete Explanation; they have no idea of the deficiencies of their method.
• Thus, they lack a purely scientific and explanatory heuristic.
  • They do not adequately distinguish description vs. explanation.
  • They do not know the type of answer they’re seeking, i.e. their known unknown.
  • They do not put questions in the right order to discover basic terms of scientific significance.
  • They are mired in muddy premises and disorienting assumptions.
  • They are unable to employ a scientific, dynamic heuristic adequate for analysis of a current, purely dynamic process.
  • They don’t understand what constitutes the normative system’s requirement for  concomitance, continuity, and equilibrium of flows.
• They lack a background in theoretical physics. They don’t understand the principles and abstract laws of hydrodynamics, electric circuits, or field theory.  Nor do they understand adequately the idea of continuity and the conditions of equilibrium in macroeconomic dynamics.  They are unaware of analogies from physics applicable on the basis of isomorphism to the phenomena of Functional Macroeconomic Dynamics. (Continue reading.)