There is an inherent conflict between the defence based on prediction (which is often used to denounce realism), and the desire for explanation from models.

Abductive reasoning seems like an appropriate way of viewing much of the “partial” literature that occurs, at least in micro and industrial economics. To me, we move past this as a discipline through survey articles and meta-analysis – which takes these partial descriptions and weighs them appropriately.

I’m a big fan of going on and on about whenever an arbitrary number I said is pretty close – it is a measurable achievement, so of course we get something out of it 😉

The small renumeration we are paid for doing work we love isn’t really relevant to the question of how much economic literature falls under the scope of “abductive reasoning” right.

I agree we should be paid more for our insights, however it appears the market disagrees – which actually makes the statement I’m agreeing with wrong in this case 😉