From: Brian McAndrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Also, perhaps Jay should be more humble when he speaks with such
>confidence about empirical science. The history of science is full of
Just to keep the resord straight, the scientific method isn't perfect, but
it's the best we have.
(Permission to reprint is expressly granted!)
POLITICS IN DISGUISE
by Jay Hanson
A large percentage of the Nobel laureates in economics live in cocoons.
-- E.O. Wilson
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt
but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise ...
economics is a form of brain damage. -- Hazel Henderson
----
Economics should be seen as politics -- not science -- for two reasons:
(1) Economists do not use the "scientific method". (2) The economist's
agenda is explicitly "normative" (political).
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the
truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like
this:
1 Observe some aspect of the universe.
2 Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
3 Use the theory to make predictions.
4 Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5 Modify the theory in the light of your results.
Go to step 3. [ http://www.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html ]
Economists will argue that "Economic systems are generally too complex
to be replicated in a laboratory environment, so economists analyze the
data."
But consider the POLITICAL heart and soul of economics: the "rational
utility mazimizer".
"One of the peculiarities of economics is that it still rests on a
behavioral assumption -- rational utility maximization -- that has long
since been rejected by sociologists and psychologists who specialize in
studying human behavior. Rational individual utility (income)
maximization was the common assumption of all social science in the
nineteenth century, but only economics continues to use it.
"Contrary behavioral evidence has had little impact on economics because
having a theory of how the world 'ought' to act, economists can reject
all manner of evidence showing that individuals are not rational utility
maximizers. Actions that are not rational maximizations exist, but they
are labeled 'market imperfections' that 'ought' to be eliminated.
Individual economic actors 'ought' to be rational utility maximizers and
they can be taught to do what they 'ought' to do. Prescription dominates
description in economics, while the reverse is true in the other social
sciences that study real human behavior." [p. 216, Thurow, 1983,
http://dieoff.com/page162.htm ]
The reason that economists cling to nineteenth-century behavioral
assumptions is because without them, they are out of a job!
It's a fact of life that economic theories can only be replaced by
better economic theories. And since economists can not invent a better
theory because of a fundementally-flawed world view, they work to make
the world match existing theory. If economists told the truth, they
would be unemployed.
The solution of course, is to junk economics, economists and start over:
"No compelling reason has ever been offered why the same strategy [of
consilience] should not work to unite the natural sciences with the
social sciences and humanities. The difference between the two domains
is in the magnitude of the problem, not the principles needed for its
solution." -- E.O. Wilson
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/bookauth/eow1.htm
Jay
-------------------------
COMING SOON TO A LOCATION NEAR YOU!
http://dieoff.com/page1.htm
