Ed Weick wrote:
Keith:
Indeed, in my view, most present-day "economists" are not economists at
all, but only econometricists. They attempt to describe and measure the
economy but not to understand it in any fundamental way. All the
"economists" we can think of during, roughly, the last century have been
either econometricists or economic journalists of greater or lesser
brilliance, and have given insights of greater or lesser relevance. None
of
them actually got to the root of the matter, least of all Keynes who was
merely a Bloomsbury, quasi-Fabian elitist.
For real economists, we still have to go back to the geniuses of the
subject, to those who grappled with economics within the context of the
other big issues of the human condition -- of demographics, politics,
trade, disease, cultural differences and so on. They were polymaths more
than merely economists. We have to skip over many "economists" of the last
century who dwelt on, and burnished, one or two facets of the subject and
go back to Marx, Ricardo, Malthus, Smith, Say . . . all the way to
Aristotle (though there must have been a few before him who have gone
unrecorded). Even though some of the true economists of the past may have
gone wildly wrongly -- wholly or partially -- it is only these, with both
a
wide and deep view of economics within the whole field of human activity
who can be called true economists.
Keith, I have a lot of respect for you, but when I read crap like this, it
begins to wane pretty quickly!
Ed
Keith's definition of real economists as more
than mere economists seems to fit in with my definition of a
PhD:
A PhD should attest that the recipient
has demonstrated love (phil) of wisdom (sophia),
with particular attention to the application of wisdom
to a certain discipline, and concurrently with
concern for the application of that discipline to
the cultivation of wisdom generally. This concern
should manifest itself, among other ways,
as passion for teaching and/or
healing (doctor), facilitated especially through
the means provided by said discipline.
Mere technical mastery
of a disciplinary field, should be certified
by a MA or MS degree. Such persons should be
permitted to practice what they know how to do but do not
know what to do with, only under supervision of
PhD level persons (see above).
Professors, in addition to the criteria for PhD,
should also PROFESS wisdom, i.e., effectively publicly speak
for the common good, in particular, speaking out
for truth that either does not yet have a voice
or whose voice has been silenced.
Those who cannot meet such criteria can acquit
themselves honorably by acknowledging their
limitations and not pretending to be more than
they are. Indeed, since there is no person
whose abilities and powers are unbounded,
this is a virtue which Everyman can practice.
And, finally, I have learned from some unintending
teachers, that:
No person can rise so high
that they cannot reach a hand down
to help another person up.
\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
