Friday, August 19, 2011

Religion and the Great I in the Sky

Welcome friends!

I was reading another religious diatribe the other day that was basically arguing that gay people don’t really exist (apparently everyone is really straight but some straight people insist on “acting gay,” which actually would be a little irritating if you think about it), and it got me thinking about why so many religious folk seem to be so challenged by the concept of human sexual diversity and other issues that scientists and researchers have accepted for years, such as the basic soundness of the theory of evolution.  I think I had a sort of epiphany, which is that these phenomena point to a fundamental problem inherent in much of Western religion: intellectual hubris and egotism...  Sorry but only selected archived (previous year) posts are currently available full text on this website.  All posts including this one are available in my annual anthology ebook series available at the Amazon Kindle Bookstore for a nominal fee.  Hey, we all need to make a buck somehow, right?  If you find my timeless jewels of wisdom amusing or perhaps even amusingly irritating throw me a bone now and then.  Thank you my friends!

Friday, August 5, 2011

Great Economists - Not

Welcome friends!

I was reading some articles the other day about the general lack of consensus among professional academic economists on certain fundamental theoretical economic issues, such as the soundness of the Keynesian prescription for counter-cyclical government spending.  I have to say I found the stories a bit irritating, with various eminent economists blithely spouting off about how their opponent is a “great economist, but ...”  What’s my problem with that?  Doesn’t healthy and polite intellectual debate indicate a robust field of inquiry?  Isn’t that a good thing?  Well, yes and no.

Now there’s certainly nothing novel about suggesting many economists appear to be motivated more by their own internalized social philosophy than by any abstract interest in the field of economics, per se.  Basically, it seems economists who don’t like government but are in awe of private industry are naturally drawn to theories in which private markets are the solution to every problem and government activity is invariably ineffectual or counterproductive.  In contrast, economists who are comfortable with the idea of government and have more nuanced views of the pros and cons of private industry are naturally drawn to theories in which maybe private markets are optimal in certain situations and maybe they aren’t and in which government activity is inherently no more or less likely to be ineffectual or counterproductive than any other course of action.  They each provide their side of the story, as it were, and hopefully we all learn something from the dialogue.

I suppose the situation with respect to personal motivations is rather similar to what goes on in what people call (or used to call) the “hard sciences.”  Maybe it doesn’t involve social philosophy, per se, but I suppose these scientists also have all sorts of extraneous reasons about why they choose to investigate or promote one theory over another.

No, the problem I have with economists is not that they often seem to be motivated largely by their own personal beliefs, it’s that many economists seem to have no real commitment to economics as an intellectual discipline.  This comes out in two ways.  First, in their zeal to push their particular agenda many economists do not seem to adequately frame their theories and findings in the broader context of economic inquiry.  To be blunt, they seem to be in rather a hurry to claim to know things when it’s pretty obvious there is significant disagreement on the point in question.  Second, many economists do not seem to be content to simply be technical experts who provide one input among many on policy questions, the economic consequences of various courses of action; they often seem to want to determine economic policy.  But determining economic policy requires them to be social philosophers as well as economists, that is, to make value judgments on certain issues, and they’re basically not very good at thinking through the relevant issues in my opinion.  (Or maybe I should say they don’t seem to me to be any better at it than any other random person walking down the street.  I mean, working out a page of equations doesn’t really prepare one very well for appreciating the limitations of the economic concept of utility as a moral construct, does it?)  In a nutshell, it’s rather obvious many economists simply want to be big shots when it comes to economic policy discussions and are all too willing to ignore the limitations of their chosen field in their quest to bring this about.

In contrast, what types of things do I suppose a really “great economist” would say?  Well, I suppose he or she might come out with statements like the following: “There is a high level of evidence and broad agreement within the economics profession for theory X.  I am working on a more controversial theory Y and I’ve recently found confirming results Z.  We don’t really know the answer to this question right now but we are continuing to work on it.  However, irrespective of any potential future consensus, it should be noted applying this theory to economic policy questions involves value issues we are not really equipped to deal with in any serious way within the field of economics.  To understand these issues, one should really see the recent paper by eminent social philosopher Joe Blow, who lays out some of the relevant ethical issues in some detail.”  Now obviously to be this type of economist one would need to be intellectually honest, humble, collaborative, and just basically willing to acknowledge the limitations of the field and to share the stage with other people.  So, do I hear a lot from what I consider great economists?  No, not really.  Sorry.  I hear a lot from economists who publish lots of academic papers, work at prestigious schools, come up with ingenious theories, like to talk, are close to some political bigwig or other, and do all manner of other things, but great economists?  No, not really.

What happens when we have all these rather less than great economists blabbing away and lauding one another as great economists?  Well, I think to the man in the street it looks as though there are actually any number of economists who can rightfully claim to have all the answers, and they’re all “great,” so who really knows?  It’s really just a matter of shopping around until one finds an economist whose theories fit one’s prior beliefs about how the world works or ought to work and then just trotting out some of his or her findings whenever one needs some intellectual ammunition to defend one’s preconceived opinions on policy questions.  It’s pretty hard for anyone else to disagree with this sort of subject matter expert so if you want to rebut that type of argument, well you need to go shopping for your own economist.  And so it goes.  You end up with people at one level arguing past each other and citing different “experts,” and if you look into it, you find the ostensible experts arguing past each other as well.  Doesn’t really make for a very productive public discussion if you think about it.  More like a colossal waste of time.  I wonder if that is one reason our population is becoming ever more anti-intellectual and economically illiterate.

So to all you economists out there, please fix your profession so we can have a more productive discussion of economic issues.  I would really appreciate it.