Apparent micro-realism in mainstream orthodox economics.

As reiterated for a long, mainstream economics mainly relies upon a set of unrealistic axioms and deductive assumptions, which, nevertheless, are what underpins its core postulates. They are unnecessarily unrealistic assumptions, mainly because the empirical evidence for contrasting them is as overwhelming as old. Even the claim for (returning to) realism in economics is already old within part of the profession. However, most mainstream academics tend to consider that their research works have in fact empirical contents insofar as they usually start by considering simplified cases, situations, or descriptions that allude to some real economic facet; this, in the way of specificities to be introduced into the standard General Equilibrium model. This seeming paradox is discussed in this paper, and as a result, it is argued that there do is a predominance of a research programme in mainstream orthodox economics (modern neoclassical "economic theory," plus "econometrics") that is mainly characterized, more than by micro-empirical precisions, by a sort of abstract micro empiricism. It is also argued that the outcomes brought about by such a "mode of research production" (contributions) do not appear significantly relevant in terms of the quantum of knowledge provided about the functioning and problems of our economies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]