Ontological Roots of the Schism in Economics and the Origins of the Conflicts between Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

This paper discusses the roots of the unending conflicts between Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy in economics, including the paradigms behind the main disagreements. Historically, it is impossible to define any school of economics and thought – in Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy – via homogeneous and monolith terms, concepts, outlines, definitions, and ideas. The most essential and obvious fact of the economy (and the especially central fact of political economy) is the "transformation of economics," including concepts, methodologies, understanding, and even perception(s). Since the early 19th Century, the "concept of economics" has transformed and changed. This process has been advancing on controversial studies based on concrete facts and phenomena in human life (especially inflation, unemployment, growth, wealth, poverty, development, etc.). But just like the methodologies and understanding of the facts, thoughts, and focuses of economic studies, the concepts (and outcomes of these concepts) have also been transforming. Unfortunately, most economists still choose to label themselves via one of the "poles" (Orthodox or Heterodox) and become part of/this polarization. And the economy has much more profound and solid polarization than any other social sciences and natural sciences (math, statistics, physics, chemistry, etc.). Also, this polarization means more than just methodologic differentiation. It also includes biases and, most of the time, ideologic backgrounds. This fact makes "the schism" much deep, unique and vital, especially in critical periods (such as like financial crisis in 2007, Covid19 in 2019, and many others). Also, unlike other social sciences, economics is directly related to daily life (and political dilemmas).