Yep, conventional economics teaching is indoctrination.
Confessions of a Supply Side Liberal
"What is indoctrination and how is it different from regular instruction?
Miles Kimball | Professor of Economics and Survey Research at the University of Michigan
This is interesting to me as a former professor of philosophy. Philosophical questions are "philosophical" because they are not yet decidable based on commonly agreed upon criteria, in which case they become either logical questions decidable by syntactical analysis or scientific ones decidable on evidence.
This positivist rule is itself not generally agreed upon, however. There are other factors involved, since all human endeavors are based on language involving the construction of frameworks and models based on context, a good deal of which is historical and cultural. Criteria themselves are norms that are context-generated rather than absolute, or "natural."
Calling a debate settled therefore risks creating obstacles to knowledge. Moreover, the view that introductory courses at the undergraduate level need to be simplified and organized by teaching a particular theory and its models is a gratuitous assumption that limits learning and does a disservice to students.
In the case of economics, it is also a setback for democratic society where informed deliberation is a requirement for exercising suffrage.
Indoctrination is propaganda that raises the question, "In whose interest?" aka Cui bono?
Nussbaum doesn't think so, however.
According to these criteria, for example, all but the most philosophical and adventurous courses in neoclassical economics will count as indoctrination, since undergraduate students certainly are taught the major conclusions of that field as established truths which they are not to criticize from the perspective of any other theory or worldview; they are taught that these truths form a unitary way of seeing the world; and, especially where microeconomics is concerned, the data of human behavior are presented as seen through the lens of that theory. It is probably good that these conditions obtain at the undergraduate level, where one cannot simultaneously learn the ropes and criticize them–although one might hope that the undergraduate will pick up in other courses, for example courses in moral philosophy, the theoretical apparatus needed to raise critical questions about these foundations.Indoctrinate people and hope that they get straightened out elsewhere? From a philosophical POV this is just outrageous.
Confessions of a Supply Side Liberal
"What is indoctrination and how is it different from regular instruction?
Miles Kimball | Professor of Economics and Survey Research at the University of Michigan
From the point of view of the undergraduate, indoctrination is something they have to endure, a means to an end. Few of them will ever revisit those subjects.
ReplyDeleteIf indoctrination in a particular philosophy were to be attempted in Philosophy 101 instead of critical thinking ± let alone a whole undergrad philosophy curriculum — there would be outrage. Guaranteed — unless it were a religious institution or some such. That's called dogmatism.
ReplyDeleteWhy is economics different in a so-called liberal society? Oh right, economics is a "science." Pseudo-science is more like it. It's riddled with arbitrary assumptions, just like dogmatic philosophies.
I'm wondering if economics could be compared with String Theory. Are they both pseudo-scientific?
ReplyDeleteAnother example may be Evolutionary Psychology.
What does my mind know? Well, not much really, that I can be bothered about, verifying for myself. Most of it is hearsay, the noise of the world: - or something I have read somewhere else. Even if I can memorise all of the ingredients and the procedures, only experience can make me a cook. Even if I watch people riding bicycles, and read about, discuss with others the Theory of Riding a Bicycle (grand title), philosophise beautifully about riding a bicycle, it doesn’t mean I know how to ride the bicycle. Only experience can teach me that. I ‘know’ what I have experienced. The mind may be full of information, but only knowing, gnosis, belongs to the self. In an ocean of concepts, only experience can teach me how to swim. And all of this goes on, in mind. If I get lost in concepts, how will I find myself, be with myself, recognise my Self; Know for myself and be certain in what I know, because it is a part of me, written in my living heart. Drifting, I would just be a slave to everybody’s concepts, without my feet on the ground, conditioned by the society and the age in which I find myself. Indoctrination is truly a wide wide confusing field – we haven’t got a clue how indoctrinated we are. I think some of the academe are among the most indoctrinated people I have ever come across and heard speak. Others just look at the colour of the skin, something that is ‘skin deep’, a pigment, and the indoctrination is so twisted people die because of it.
ReplyDeleteThe same atoms make up every form in the universe. What is so special about the atoms that come together to make up anyone at all; and why is the consciousness different in each one if it’s the same atoms? Everything I know about driving a car is useful only as long as highways and cars exist – so is it Knowledge; or just information. Nobody in this world seems to discriminate between what is knowledge and what is information. Everybody wants to paint something on my mind and tell me that it is a truth: - a social truth; a political truth; a religious truth, a lasting truth. Something to do with my existence. But as soon as it disappears off the screen of my mind, for me at least, it no longer exists except for memory – and that fades away, thankfully, lest our mind is overloaded with useless junk. What has information to do with existence? Nothing – nothing at all. What has knowledge to do with existence – everything! Who provides us with information and who provides us with knowledge?
For me, the mind is meant to be clear, so that you can see yourself – where you exist – somewhere where the mind cannot go. That’s its number one use. To be a transparent window in which a lit candle shines. It needs to be clear so you can see straight through it. Any age; any time. Then you can use it to drive a car if you want to. And the indoctrination is obstacles we put in our own path. The pictures and concepts we paint in the mind to hypnotise us. And the reason why you want to find yourself is also crystal clear – because of what walks besides you, every step of the way. Something you have been looking for, with or without mind. No indoctrination; just being clear.
Economics is about as scientific as my ar*e! In fact, even less so, because at least my ar*e knows exactly how to dispense with waste and recycle.
"Why is economics different in a so-called liberal society?"
ReplyDeleteEconomics is politics - as is running any university science department. It's a battle for funding and support for ideas.
I'm getting huge resistance at the moment from 'macroeconomists' that really don't want to split the aggregate into entities and look at the aggregation function *even though* the Lucas critique still applies - that policies act on individual entities, not the whole.
As soon as you investigate something from a slightly different angle there is huge resistance - because of course it may undermine somebody's favourite pet theory for which they get lots of invites to conferences. Even though falsifiability is a prerequisite of any scientific statement.
Most of this stuff has more to do with formation of religious cults and tribes than anything else. That's why people continue to use words to describe it - even though words are utterly useless at describing concurrent asynchronous dynamic processes. Or they use relatively primitive mathematics - which has nothing to do with being scientific and actually has the same purpose as keeping the Bible in Latin. Ensuring only a small elite has access to the actual meaning.
One funeral at a time... In the case of economics is even worse, as Keynes himself put it. I guess because it's further up the chain of control and power (at the core itself), is much harder to challenge.
ReplyDeleteIMO economics has a lot of foundational issues to clear up, it's in a pre-scientific period, and when we are past that it will be a big advance, even if . We are getting there, there is challenging of the status quo, but it has to really breakthrough yet.
We may need one or two more big crisis before it finally breaks down, as the process works differently than in natural sciences due to how intermingled is with the power structure.
There is more about real economics in this documentary, than I have seen reading financial blogs since the GFC: http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/516091459605/earth-from-space
ReplyDelete... watched the above doc again this morning because I missed the beginning: can now confirm its political-economy 001 - please take some time and look at the reality of it! Humans have a choice, and it is not at the ballot box ...
ReplyDeletejrbarch,
ReplyDeleteI cannot watch the documentary from the link you gave. Is this the one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSRgKKoLLiQ