In his biting critique of the economics profession Robert Clower suggests that much of the profession is irrelevant, more concerned with techniques and game-playing than with ideas. Because it is irrelevant, many economists do not take their own subject seriously. He asks, “How many footnotes do we need?” In my view, Clower's critique of the profession is correct; the spread of economic ideas is seriously undermined by the educational institutions that have developed in the United States.

Arguing that much of what economists do is irrelevant goes against what is currently in vogue in the philosophy of science; most scientists seem implicitly to believe that there exists an invisible hand which guides science to the truth. In this normal science view, scientists search after understanding by dividing up a set of questions, and trying to answer one small subset of those questions. Their answer to the question: “Does this lead to Truth?” is, “Yes, each researcher is looking at only a small part of the puzzle, but, combined, economists’ research is the best way of approaching truth.” Solow argues below that this normal science view is the generally held view of what economists do within the profession. Yes, he agrees, there are some minor problems; some researchers are doing irrelevant work, but these are problems of any scientific profession; in total, economics is not that bad and no worse than any other field.