Steve Sailer has at his blog a complete takedown of Paul Krugman's column on why bubbles should not necessarily be followed by downturns. See the post here. One of the comments is classic, though, in discussing the different schools of thought on economics:
"In this particular case, I find it extra amusing that he is attacking Austrians for lacking stringency. Well, they do lack it, but this coming from an ultra-Keynesian?!? They don’t have any coherent model of the business cycle either. The only guys that have coherent models are the neoclassical, and their models are obviously wrong (newkensians have models too, but they are not very good, they get their results by cheating, such as assuming all firms are monopolies, rather than tying actual patterns we observe to their results)."
I love it when you have arguments like that. As someone who has studied history and historiography; schools of thought arguments are very much part and parcel.