ABSTRACT
The only dilemma that economists face while they are doing research is not choosing between alternative theories that yield epistemic utility. As the idiom appearing in the title suggests, economists sometimes have to choose between two options, both of which come at a cost. Economists now and again have to choose between rejecting a theory and not rejecting a theory when they are confronted with refuting evidence and falsifying data about the theory with which they are working. Rejecting a theory might amount to ‘paying’ the epistemic cost of time invested in the construction and application of the theory. Not rejecting a theory might amount to sticking to an erroneous theory knowingly and intentionally. Neither option would be perfect because an economist rejecting a theory would lose an epistemic tool the opportunity cost of which is months or years of understanding and explaining the facts of the world; an economist not rejecting an erroneous theory would have to work with an epistemic tool producing unreliable results. And this would inflict harm upon others in the community of scholars. Besides, the consequences of rejecting or not rejecting a theory when epistemic costs are high are often irrevocable. When economists are caught between Scylla and Charybdis, epistemic costs of doing the right thing are high. Then, it makes little sense to look for progress which is discreet rather than continuous.
