Jim is correct that the corporate influence in the second point is antithetical to science, and so could be subsumed under the third point.
The first point is something different -- or maybe represents the fogginess of the sociology of science. Economists are told that models are science and everything else is claptrap. Of course, this narrow science may not be signs that all. It would be almost as if physicists, trying to understand the nature of the air, concentrated in their laboratory on the study of rocks, assuming that rocks are air. On a more realistic example Indian soil science, tends to study the kind of soils that occur in United States. It is still science, but without moorings to the needs of its society. In my second point, something similar happens. Pressures coerce scientists to do science, but only the kind of science that is useful to capital. So it is not just a matter of more science. On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 02:08:06PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote: > Michael Perelman wrote: > >Jim asked about the trade-off between science and social > responsibility. The two should march hand in hand, but the question > is are there forces separating both of them. > > >1. I knew more about economic education than scientific training. We > have some excellent scientific people here who can correct me. In the > case of young students of economics -- who are trained to think of > themselves as scientific -- the technical demands are so extreme that > training in the more humanistic parts of economics, such as economic > history and even more so the history of economic thought, are falling > by the wayside. > > >2. As universities become more dependent on corporate funding, > students have less opportunity to question corporate interests. Think > of the recent case in which a graduate student in Oregon got hammered > for questioning forestry practices. > > >3. Here is a question: what percentage of scientific people are > working directly or indirectly for the military-industrial complex? < > > me: > Points 1 and 2 that economics needs more scientific thinking, not less > [though scientistic thinking should be shunned]. Point 3 suggests > that science needs more scientific thinking -- and that the problem is > the type of society we live in, not science _per se_. We live in a > society that corrupts not only science, but economics, religion, > ethics, etc. > -- > Jim Devine / "The optimist thinks that this is the best of all > possible worlds; the pessimist knows it." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
