Economics is primarily a way of thinking about the world that uncovers the true mechanisms and processes behind, and helps us understand, what we can all observe. This is a forever thread collecting my #econthread tweets. #PerBylundthreads

In graduate school, students learn that one idea is one paper. Don't waste more than one idea when writing a paper. It also dilutes and risks obfuscating the argument. The paper needs to be focused and make the one point forcefully and persuasively. Every word and claim needs to be fully intentional, nothing left open to interpretation or that can unnecessarily raise doubts. Writing a scholarly paper thus takes a lot of thinking and a lot of crafting before it can be submitted. And then it goes through rounds of (often extensive) revisions before it is considered good enough to be accepted for publication. Granted, not all papers are well written or make their points clearly enough. But the rule "one idea - one paper" still holds true. A paper is about presenting the idea, producing the complete argument for it, positioning it within the scholarly conversation, and making clear why and how it matters. If you understand this, then you also understand what "taken out of context" means. No scholarly argument can be dismissed or rejected based on a singular statement or phrase. To critique the argument requires addressing it in its entirety: the gist of it including the nuances presented, the rationales, and all the pieces of the puzzle that contribute to the conclusion. Very rarely does an argument stand or fall with one of the claims made in support of it. And those claims must still be read (and critiqued) from the perspective of the argument made. Scholarly discourse demands that an argument is assessed and scrutinized as stated. Many arguments certainly end up, after much discussion, not holding water - or being replaced by other, better arguments. But scholars are not peddlers of mere opinion and thus a scholarly argument cannot be rejected by simply stating a different opinion. Those who disagree do so because the argument does not hold, which means valid critiques must point to flaws, errors, insufficiencies in the argument itself. This is how we have through centuries of study made enormous progress in our understanding of how the world works. Every addition and subtraction from the body of knowledge is a contribution to it. We are homing in on the truth. Had scholarship been about mere opinions, we would have seen no progress but only hot air. A debate between someone advocating traditional conservative values and someone advocating progressive values will not lead to better understanding of the world. This too is an art of persuasion but based in normativity and opinion rather than truth or fact. Scholarly discourse is also, in the end, about persuasion - but it has fundamentally different starting point and purpose. Getting someone to side with you does not necessarily make your argument true (or truer). Instead, our knowledge tends to progress through scientific revolutions as a paradigm's tensions become intellectually unbearable and it is replaced by a new paradigm that better explains the world. This progress requires that every paper (and thus argument) is produced according to the highest scholarly standards, that it is the result of much reading and thinking and rethinking. As each argument is aiming to add to our knowledge by breaking new ground, there is no "key" or "right answer." The argument's truth value can only be established over time as it is scrutinized and contrasted to other arguments, many of which have not yet seen the light of day. Most arguments are wrong in some sense, but it is only through allowing the process to continue that we can learn which ones, how, and to what extent. This process, and the slow refinement of our body of knowledge that it implies, is the only way we know of to home in on real knowledge about the world. It has served us well despite attacks from both political power and popular opinion. It is also constantly undermined by faux scholars producing arguments that are made out to be in service of finding the truth but in reality are "informed" by personal opinion and, sometimes, intended to prop up the writer's worldview. These are costly but unavoidable issues in scholarship - and the process can and does overcome these obstacles as long as there is a somewhat open scholarly discourse. As soon as some opinion is used as "key" and thus leveraged to rid the conversation of some perspectives or viewpoints, scholarship is undermined, loses its value, and becomes unreliable. For this reason, we should welcome anyone who wishes to contribute to the conversation. New viewpoints and perspectives are not threats but opportunities to learn and progress. Graduate training is not about learning a certain sets of beliefs but about learning the art of scholarly pursuit of knowledge. Part of this is to acquire extensive knowledge of what has already been said, which means learning the current state of knowledge in the particular subject matter and what questions are being asked in the ongoing scholarly conversation. This training is also about how to formulate arguments and write papers, such as being honest and comprehensive in one's presentation of both pros and cons. Many papers have "limitations" sections where the limits of the presented argument are listed. That does not mean the argument fails, but an admission by the writer that there are unknowns that are relevant to the argument yet remain to be studied. None of this means that graduate training is necessary in order to contribute to the conversation. You do not need a PhD in order to discuss a topic or point out (what appear to you to be) flaws. But it does mean that one must adhere to the basic standards of scholarship in order to have a say. No one has time (or interest) to listen to the random guy vocally expressing opinions based on poor understanding of what he thinks he has "debunked." But it is also a matter of form: if you do not understand that a paper is an argument and that the paper is the presentation of that one argument, then you are unlikely to find a valid reason to reject it. You cannot, as many do on this platform, skim an article until you find a phrase or sentence that you disagree with and then, on this basis, dismiss the argument. (Or, as I suspect is also often the case, instruct an AI to find anything wrong with a paper.) Undergraduate students are sometimes asked to critique a text. What they usually come up with is a list of quotes from the text that they can make out to be false (and sometimes they are indeed false or at least suspect). If their professor is any good, then s/he will inform the student that this is not how to critique an argument. The points may be valid but unless they are core to the argument and not merely supportive, they do very little to scrutinize the argument. In a better world, no one should be able to graduate from college (or high school!) without being able to recognize what is an argument, identify its strengths and weaknesses, and produce an insightful assessment. Unfortunately, very few get this training. Even fewer understand this. It really is a sad intellectual state of our contemporary society that so many, even otherwise well-educated and with life experience, think they have found valid flaws in a scholarly argument after spending several minutes looking for something to disagree with. This behavior should be fundamentally embarrassing for anyone who is beyond his teens. Especially if you have some form of education.