His opening is good. He says economics consists of a bundle of related things. There's the empirical question of "What?" The theoretical question of "Why?" The ethical question of "What ought we to do?" And there's the philosophical or ideological question of "Who [what school?] best articulates 1-3?"
It'll be an interesting argument.
I'm a little leery of him, and he intermingles this even in that opening, he's an advocate of Intelligent Design, and a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. I don't want to get distracted by that, but in
Intelligent Design Theory: Why it Matters he states "We now have a reliable scientific method, formalized by mathematician and philosopher William Dembski (in The Design Inference, Cambridge University Press, 1998), for detecting designed objects and distinguishing them from the products of chance and impersonal laws. Scientists already use the design inference intuitively in fields such as cryptography, archaeology and forensics. When applied to nature's fine-tuned laws, DNA sequences and Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems, the clear conclusion is that they are intelligently designed."
Whoa, wait a darn minute, Demski's formulation is mathematical but not scientific, about as reliable in its abstraction as Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism. It amounts to Demski and his follower Behe reaching a point in biological explanation where they throw up their hands befundled and declare must be an Intelligent Designer. All their examples have been explained away biologically.
So for all the brilliance of his approaching economics at four distinct levels is somewhat tarnished by belief in the old Watchmake Argument of Paley.
I digress but had to get that out there.