The second point is that this academic debate had zero impact on politicians. In that sense Cooper’s article is of purely academic concern. Austerity was not begun because politicians chose the wrong academic macroeconomists to take advice from, and the fact that the Keynesians won the debate therefore had no impact on what they did. The academic debate was in this sense a complete sideshow. I think many Keynesian academics understood that: it was a fight we had to win but we were under no illusions it would change anything. I wrote in 2012 that if all academics were united we might have an impact on public opinion, but that illusion did not last very long and Brexit showed it was indeed an illusion.Mainly Macro
I think this lack of influence that academic economics can have is not understood by many. It often suits some heterodox economists to pretend otherwise. Economists can be influential, but only when politicians want to listen, or the media is prepared to confront them with academic knowledge. For example politicians have not done nearly enough to ensure another financial crisis does not happen, but that isn’t because economists have told them not to or have not shown them how to do so. It is because politics prevents it happening....
The biggest economic policy mistake of the last decade, and it had nothing to do with academic economists
Simon Wren-Lewis | Emeritus Professor of Economics, Oxford University
39 comments:
The biggest scientific mistake of the last centuries, and it has much to do with academic economists
Comment on Simon Wren-Lewis on ‘The biggest economic policy mistake of the last decade, and it had nothing to do with academic economists’
Simon Wren-Lewis argues: “I think this lack of influence that academic economics can have is not understood by many. It often suits some heterodox economists to pretend otherwise. Economists can be influential, but only when politicians want to listen, or the media is prepared to confront them with academic knowledge.”
Economists have it always BOTH ways. Keynes famously argued: “Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
In economics, everything and the exact opposite has already been said sometime, somewhere, by somebody. Self-contradiction is NOT a disadvantage. Just the opposite. If some major economic event happens, there is always somebody who ‘saw it coming’ or ‘who got it right but, unfortunately, was ignored’. The discussion about austerity is NOT different.
Simon Wren-Lewis tells the story how he, Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong and others have successfully taken down the arguments for austerity: “As far as us Keynesians were concerned, the intellectual battles were won by the end of 2012 if not before.”
This gives us the Iron Rule of Political Economics: If economic shit happens then it was NEVER the fault of economists but of politicians who do not understand economics and always listen to the incompetent economists and ignore the competent economists.” The truth is just the opposite: “Late in life, moreover, he [Napoleon] claimed that he had always believed that if an empire were made of granite the ideas of economists, if listened to, would suffice to reduce it to dust.” (Viner)
This is why intelligent heads of state do not listen to economists but only employ them as useful idiots.
The point is this: “In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means, the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common sense or his personal opinion.” (Stigum)
Now, this is the current state of economics: the four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got profit ― the pivotal concept of the subject matter ― wrong. With the pluralism of provably false theories, economists have not achieved anything of scientific value. They nonetheless hold up the claim to be scientists and experts.
The key to understanding economics is that there are TWO economixes: political and theoretical economics. Theoretical economics (= science) had been hijacked from the very beginning by the agenda pushers of political economics. Economics claims to be a science but is NOT. Economists claim to know how the economy works but do NOT. From this follows that economic policy guidance from Smith/Marx onward NEVER had sound scientific foundations. This applies also to the issue of austerity.#1, #2, #3
See part 2
“The biggest policy mistake of the last decade is of course austerity.”
No. Austerity in the UK and USA is not a “mistake.” It is a ploy by politicians and bureaucrats to widen the gap between the rich and the rest.
Nor is austerity a “mistake” in Eurozone nations that have trade deficits. For those nations, austerity is unavoidable.
The article repeats four times that austerity is a “mistake.” This is insulting.
“Cooper goes through all the academics who gave reasons why austerity was necessary and how their analysis later fell to bits. (How much they fell to bits is still a matter of dispute as far as these authors are concerned.)”
Economists don’t “analyze.” They are paid to bullshit -- i.e. to turn truth into "lies," and lies into "truth."
“With Trump’s large tax cuts for the rich paid for in large part by borrowing, the Republicans can no longer credibly tell everyone austerity is essential.”
Wrong. The U.S. government does not borrow its spending money from anyone. Meanwhile Republicans (and leading Democrats) are indeed demanding more austerity by falsely claiming that federal social programs are “unsustainable.” Politicians get away with this crap because most people are hopelessly stupid. For example, right wingers and most left wingers are attacking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez because she wants Universal Medicare, like every other industrial country has.
“I became part of a mainly US blog scene of mainstream academics opposed to austerity, led by Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong.:
Please. Paul Krugman loves austerity (i.e. deficit reduction). In 2011, Obama and the Congress were austerity-happy. Remember Obama’s “Grand Bargain” and the Simpson-Bowles Catfood Commission? Krugman said that America most definitely needed austerity, just not at that moment in 2011. Krugman also wrote in 2011 that MMT is “just wrong.”
Like most economists, Krugman is a liar who sugar-coats his neoliberal excrement by calling himself a “liberal.” Serving neoliberalism is how you get a Nobel Prize in economics.
Konrad,
"No. Austerity in the UK and USA is not a “mistake.” It is a ploy by politicians and bureaucrats to widen the gap between the rich and the rest."
Why are you so sure about that conspiracy theory? Where is the evidence?
I believe that there is plenty evidence, including in this blog, that even most true left-wingers (who are not in defense of the rich) do wrongly believe that austerity is necessary, either all the time or through the business cycle (whatever this means).
It is not a "ploy". People indeed believe that "earth is flat". Right and left-wingers alike. MMTers are the only ones who know that "earth is round", unfortunately.
The academic debate was in this sense a complete sideshow.
Politics is all a sideshow. The real business happens behind the scenes, out of sight.
Recall this, which has been posted several times here at MNE.
The Guardian
Robert Mundell, evil genius of the euro
Greg Palast
What about Robert Mundell?
First, he is one of those crazy guys that sincerely believe that the government exist to make things worse and that if there were no laws, the economy would work much better, for everyone, including him. He believes that workers are lazy parasites that don't like to work but who like to go on strikes for more rights nonetheless.
He did not try to create low economic activity or unemployment on purpose - actually, he thinks that, on the contrary, austerity brings GDP growth and more jobs. If it is not working, it is just because some short term effect that will be soon compensated. If it still isn't working, that is because the austerity was not austere enough.
It is not an evil plot do destroy the world. He does believe that austerity is good.
Second, he did not create the euro area alone, and countries did not joined it just because of him. Many people, including probably all the population, all the economists and all the politicians (except the few MMTers) believe that the government works like a household and that it must expend only what it earned in revenue.
Is the entire world conspiring against us, the MMTers?
That conspiracy theory thing is just crazy. No wonder that my friends believe that MMTers are a bunch of crazies...
"Why are you so sure about that conspiracy theory? Where is the evidence?”
Why do you insist on calling austerity a “conspiracy theory”? The label is ridiculous.
Politicians know that the U.S. government creates its spending money out of thin air. Therefore when U.S. politicians collectively claim there is “no money” for social programs, they are collectively LYING. They are colluding to maintain the lie that the U.S. government runs on loans and tax revenue.
Economists lie too, because (like politicians) they are paid to.
Pundits, plutocrats, politicians, and the heads of big corporations all collude with each other in various ways, and to varying degrees, in order to widen the gap between themselves and the lower classes.
To try and deny this collusion by labeling it a “conspiracy theory” is pathetic.
“I believe that there is plenty evidence, including in this blog, that even most true left-wingers (who are not in defense of the rich) do wrongly believe that austerity is necessary, either all the time or through the business cycle (whatever this means).”
Many left wingers believe that austerity is good, because many left wingers are stupid. They have been programmed by lies. Most people believe whatever politicians and corporate media outlets tell them. Most people believe the lie that the U.S. government is like a private household, and must “live within its means.”
By contrast, economists, bankers, politicians, and the very rich know they are liars. They lie in order to CONTROL THE SOCIAL NARRATIVE.
"It is not a 'ploy'."
Yes it is. U.S. government dollars are like water from a bottomless well. Politicians falsely claim that the infinite water is “scarce” This is a ploy to keep the peasants down, and keep the masses groveling to politicians.
“Is the entire world conspiring against us, the MMTers?“
André this is a competing theory from the Art Degree people in MMT....
It’s a textbook Liberal Arts approach to any subject, ie competing theories...
Those of us science trained don’t approach things this way we look at data and empirical results...
Tom is it proper Philosophy under the Liberal Arts approach to just claim that those with a competing theory are just “lying” that their theory is better?
I would assume it is not proper... but I’m Science trained so you never know....
“everything you don't understand a "conspiracy theory."”
Andre understands all of this pretty well...
Tom is it proper Philosophy under the Liberal Arts approach to just claim that those with a competing theory are just “lying” that their theory is better?
I would assume it is not proper... but I’m Science trained so you never know....
It's investigated in philosophy and cognitive science.
All of us have a world view. World views differ, perhaps slightly but perhaps a great deal. We affiliate based on shared world views. If one beings to groups that don't share a common world view. this creates some double binds and cognitive dissonance, or role-playing, These world views are "programed" into the brain functioning. At the social level this results in group think and conflict within and among groups.
No one can escape this. There is no "eye of God" available to ordinary humans that provides human absolute knowledge or absolute criteria. We are all creatures of our stories, which change over history and geography.
We are creatures of the stories we are told in the various groups to which we belong, and especially by the culture in which we grow up and live. We tell ourselves and each other these stories and agree (or disagree) that they are "reality."
Students of history, anthropology, philosophy, etc. are well-aware of the range of stories and therefor the view of reality that have occurred and are now confronting each other an clashing, even in the same society.
In some cases these stories clash in the same society and even in the same individual — for example, liberalism and traditionalism. How is Paul Ryan a believer in Ayn Rand and also a devout Catholic?
This is why narrative control is essential. Whoever controls the narrative controls the group because "perception is reality." Whoever can influence the perception can generate group think and control the thinking and behavior of the group.
See the link to Caitlin Johnstone post I just put up here at MNE.
So one can escape the Matrix (group think) but then either subscribes to the world view of another group, or fashion one that is unique to oneself, but that's borderline madness.
What would be the criteria for evaluating different world views when criteria are embedded in the framework of world views and cognitive science has discovered that reason and feeling cannot be completely disentangled, so that positive and normative are bound up together.
But surely, there are facts. Of course there are "facts." But facts don't exist in the world as separate and distinct facts or events, and neither to things although things are more distinct in sense perception than facts and events, which required more framing. But things don't exist in isolation but only in relation to other things.
These can framed as apparently separate and distinct in narratives, which are always framed from some point of view. The "facts" that are commonly agreed upon are seldom the important one. Moreover, it is possible to use a narrative skillfully to create the "facts" in a narrative that favor one's interests without lying, e.g., by selection and emphasis.
When logic and rhetoric are brought into the discussion, it quickly become obvious that framing is everything and also that a lot of framing is implicit (tacit), existing at the level of presumption.
So are a condemned to argue over world views or else avoid others with different views.
People of action either realize this or grasp it intuitively and don't waste time on analysis and debate. They act. A good deal of what they do is influence the narrative. The powerful vie for control of it. Huge struggles are going on in the US and UK right now.
Simon Wren-Lewis's claim that austerity (in the sense of inadequate demand) had nothing to do with professional economists is bunk. MMTers during the recent crisis were rightly pointing to the pro-austerity clap-trap coming from Kenneth Rogoff, Carmen Reinhart, the IMF and so on.
As for Konrad's claim that austerity is a ploy by the rich to widen the gap between rich and poor, that is also bunk. Reason is that there is no obvious reason why stimulus should have much effect on equality in the long run. Stimulus is likely to raise profits of course, but it is also likely to raise wages.
Ok Tom but again is it proper form to just say the other Theory is “lying” in the liberal arts Philosophy world?
So iow back in the day do we see Aristotle just accusing Socrates of “lying!” ?
“How is Paul Ryan a believer in Ayn Rand and also a devout Catholic?“
The RCC was founded by dialectic philosophers (Socratic) so this should not be a surprise to any of us...
“social Justice” is thesis and Ayn Rand is antithesis... you synthsize these in human form and get a Paul Ryan ... rinse and repeat...
Here Ryan never was able to see this statement as knowledge and truth:
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world,” Col 2:8
Ryan is obviously spoiled thru Philosophy...
Konrad,
Here are some dictionary definitions for the word "conspiracy":
conspiracy: a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful; the action of plotting or conspiring; an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
Here are the things you are literally saying:
"No. Austerity in the UK and USA is not a mistake. It is a ploy"
"Economists don’t analyze. They are paid to bullshit -- i.e. to turn truth into lies"
"They [US politicians] are colluding to maintain the lie that the U.S. government runs on loans and tax revenue."
"Economists lie too, because (like politicians) they are paid to."
"Pundits, plutocrats, politicians, and the heads of big corporations all collude with each other in various ways"
"economists, bankers, politicians, and the very rich know they are liars. They lie in order to CONTROL THE SOCIAL NARRATIVE."
"This is a ploy to keep the peasants down, and keep the masses groveling to politicians."
That is the definition of a conspiracy. Or you speak another language similar to English but where "conspiracy" is another thing.
Politicians all around the world are considered corrupt, selfish, arrogant and greedy, ready to sacrifice the public interests in order to achieve their own interests. The same is usually true for how people see rich people. I'm not disputing that this view is incorrect. I do believe that people lie to achieve their own purposes (including poor people, by the way).
However, to claim that they actually know how the monetary system works but are colluding to lie ir order be able to control the peasants is just total crazy. Sorry.
Andre, like every day Bll Mitchell will have the phrase “neoliberal lies!” in his blog... they all think this is a big “neoliberal conspiracy!”...
And I suspect (Tom is dodging the question here) that even for these liberal Art people, they are not even complying with their own proper procedures for their dialectic method when they accuse the opposing theorists of “lying!” all the time...
So we know #1 they are incompetent and unqualified for Science never having trained in that..... and now #2 they may not even be competent/qualified for liberal arts either as they immediately bail out into their “neoliberal lies!” meme when frustrated... which I would assume is not even proper dialectic Philosophy...
Ok Tom but again is it proper form to just say the other Theory is “lying” in the liberal arts Philosophy world?
It's not OK without substantiation, like evidence of intent in a court of law.
Otherwise, it's a common fallacy called "mind-reading." which is closely related to the fallacy called "magical thinking."
It is very hard to substantiate this with respect to the parties holding opposing views. Much simpler when the parties subscribe to the same views, since their are commonly agreed upon criteria.
So iow back in the day do we see Aristotle just accusing Socrates of “lying!” ?
As far as we know, Aristotle was influenced by Plato's version of Socrates' teaching. Aristotle took exception to the view that all knowledge is within and that universals (classes) could be accounted for by "forms" as Platonic "ideas" that perceived objects "participated" in.
Aristotle, theorized that the forms are essence that are instantiated within material things and imprinted on the mind, which was a "blank slate." He proposed that the "active intellect" cognizes the form of a thing and impresses it on the "passive intellect" through intellectual intuition, which is comparable to sense intuition and occurs along with it.
Much of the history epistemology is criticism and suggestions for improve of these positions, with the addition of several more positions, some of which were already current in ancient Greece.
The matter remains undecided and various thinker hold to one position or another, or just opt out, holding that the matter us unresolvable until science clarifies it. No one in philosophy thinks that those disagreeing with them is lying. Some think that others are wrong. Other think that they are stupid. Yet, others just agree to disagree over a controversial subject, and carry on.
Most fundamental questions can be traced back to different views of what is (metaphysics), what can be known (epistemology, what one ought to do (ethics), and what is appreciable (aesthetics). From this follows natural philosophy (which we now call "science), psychology and cognitive science, social and political philosophy, and art and literary criticism.
In traditionalism, the subject of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics is being as one, true, good, and beautiful.
Classical liberalism is based on naturalism.
Most contemporary views are a synthesis of traditionalism and liberalism, which gives rise to paradoxes.
Modern liberalism tends to equate naturalism as a methodological principle with materialism as a metaphysical principle, principles being key assumptions in model contraction.
Thx Tom, Right “mind reading” tell... ... interesting....
“How is Paul Ryan a believer in Ayn Rand and also a devout Catholic?“
The RCC was founded by dialectic philosophers (Socratic) so this should not be a surprise to any of us...
“social Justice” is thesis and Ayn Rand is antithesis... you synthsize these in human form and get a Paul Ryan ... rinse and repeat...
Said by someone that obviously has no idea of the history of this, or the issues involved, and is being flippant.
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world,” Col 2:8
You are aware that this is a statement in a world view, and every scriptural gloss has different interpretations in contending views?
Otherwise, you should like someone that has complete convivial that his world view is correct and all those views opposed to it are wrong.
The obvious retort is, How do you know? Which is a request for evidence and criteria that are not limited by one's world view but encompass all world views.
neoliberal conspiracy!
Nonsense. The term "neoliberal" and a specific use of it arose in political science in terms of government capture, and Bill has defined his meaning of "conspiracy" in relation to group think.
The ideas of a "thought collective" and "group think," and their social influence, arose from the work of scientist (microbiologist) Ludwig Fleck.
Philip Mirowsk (Carl E. Koch Professor of Economics and Policy Studies and the History and Philosophy of Science) has written extensively on this.
Admitted this is a controversial idea, but most significant ideas and views are controversial. The controversy established different positions and their views.
"complete convivial" should be "complete conviction."
Don't know how I missed that auto correction.
Tom,
"No one can escape this. There is no 'eye of God' available to ordinary humans that provides human absolute knowledge or absolute criteria"
Well, there is no eye of God but there is real world evidence. Of course, we will never be 100% sure of anything in this world, but at least you can say "I believe in X because there is enough evidence to support it". And I believe there is enough evidence to support the claim that there is no neoliberal conspiracy going on, and that ignorance is what is driving the austerity mindset. People ignorantly but sincerely believe that money is gold and that the government is a household.
"Students of history, anthropology, philosophy, etc. are well-aware of the range of stories and therefor the view of reality that have occurred and are now confronting each other an clashing, even in the same society"
Well, I guess one could argue that they should be well-aware, but it seems they are not. Actually, I get frustrated when some historian claims that the Roman empire collapsed because it was spending more than it earned in revenue or that the finances of some medieval kingdom were in ruins. They clearly are talking about things they don't understand, and they are not even aware of that...
"this creates some double binds and cognitive dissonance, or role-playing"
Agreed. Also, I don't think the "conspiracy theory" fallacy is something like the "magical thinking fallacy" or "mind reading fallacy".
I think it is closer to some fallacy like "My world view is the absolute correct one and it is obvious. If people say they have a different world view, they must be lying, because that is not possible".
Even if there was something resembling an absolute correct world view, it would still be a fallacy - because probably such view is not obvious to everyone, and people that disagree are not necessary lying or decieving.
Maybe people already gave a name to such fallacy, maybe they didn't, but I think it is something like that is going on here...
I believe there is enough evidence to support the claim that there is no neoliberal conspiracy going on, and that ignorance is what is driving the austerity mindset.
The operative phrase there is "I believe..."
That's why there is the rule of law rather than men, including rules of evidence, procedures to guarantee due process, etc.
It is similar with scholarship.
Does this necessitate that a correct judgement is made in all cases. \
No, for several reasons.
Failure in the process owing to incorrect application
False evidence. Forgery is a big issue in scholarship for instance.
As issues become more abstract or data thinner, the ability to decide issues becomes less and less sure.
Add presumptions to this, along with cognitive-affective bias, there are different views held by people that firmly "believe in" the putative evidence supporting the respective views.
“Said by someone that obviously has no idea of the history of this, or the issues involved, and is being flippant.”
There is 19th century research that identifies the earliest church fathers as Platonist... they were trained Platonist Philosophers...
“being flippant“
Flippant schmippant... It’s either true or it’s not....
You just asked how somebody like Paul Ryan could be like that and I just told you how...
There is 19th century research that identifies the earliest church fathers as Platonist... they were trained Platonist Philosophers..
They knew Plato but they were theologians that took scripture as authoritative. They interpreted scripture from their point(s) of view and based doctrine on it these understandings. They were dogmatists rather than dialecticians in any of the several senses of the term.
The Christian tradition is based on:
Judaic scripture, which Jesus quoted, and Jewish practice (the Last Supper, during which Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me," was a Passover seder).
The New Testament.
The Church Fathers in the RCC and Orthodox traditions.
The Doctors of the Church in Roman Catholicism.
The works of Protestant theologians in the Protestant tradition.
This is all essentially dogmatic, which is the opposite of dialectic. Those who held the "correct" views were considered "orthodox," which is not to be confused with "Orthodox" meaning the Byzantine tradition of Christianity and its derivatives. Those who held different views were held by the orthodox to heterodox and the views were considered "heresy." "Heresy" means to choose for oneself without authority.
The only dialectic involved is differences over views within denominations, sects and schools, and among these. Difference in views within groups were bounded by the scope of the belief system that was established as being authoritative. Those that exceeded this scope were excluded from the group. Creeds were established as shibboleths.
There was dialectal progression within groups to speak of, for when basic disagreements arose, the group subdivided. But many of these divisions were also political. This began in the very early times when there was still diversity in the early church until the imposition of uniformity. While "catholic" means "universal" in Greek, it came to mean "uniform."
After the separate of "heretical groups" in the first centuries, uniformity persisted until the split between the Eastern and Western branches of the Church, which remains in effect today. while there were doctrinal disagreements, there was also an influential political component, owing to differences between the Roman and Byzantine traditions stemming from the division of the Roman and Byzantine Empires.
The only actual dialectic occurs much later with scholarly debate, which really didn't begin until the 19th century after liberalization and the decline of state religion, although there was some disagreement in views permitted before that if it remained within the boundaries of established doctrine. While the Protestant tradition was more liberal than the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, it was still circumscribed by state authority, and biblical interpretation tended to be rigidly literal.
You just asked how somebody like Paul Ryan could be like that and I just told you how...
You imagine you told me how.
"The operative phrase there is 'I believe...'"
I understand what you are saying, but you know, I also believe that the Earth is round.
It is a belief, and, in philosophical terms, I will never be 100% sure that the Earth is indeed round. Maybe it is flat and I'm a fool to believe otherwise.
However, there are degrees of "believability", you know. The claim that the Earth is round is as believable as something can be in this life, together with some other facts (like the fact that Trump is the president of the US at this instant, for example, or that Elvis is dead, as we have already discussed).
The fact that people in general believe that money is like gold also ranks very high in the believability scale. You just need to pay a little attention to the world around you to understand that.
I'm not claiming some loose, subjective, or low/non-evidence based things like "Jazz is better than Blues" or "Russians shot down the MH171 airplane"
If I followed your philosophy, I would never be able to comment anything in this blog. All I would be able to say was "hello, all I know is that I know nothing. thanks".
If we get a little more down to earth, we will be able to make a real conversation and say things like "I believe that the best policy option is X because evidence Y seems to suggest that is the best way" or "there is not enough evidence yet to support Z" and things like that, which are much more useful...
If you followed my philosophy, when you make a claim to know for sure (with certainty), you would substantiate this, or at least be prepared to substantiate it, with reasoning that is evidence based, where the evidence is publicly available and can be checked.
Otherwise, you would say, in my view, or in my opinion, or, as I appears to me, or "I think that..." or I believe ...., "it is likely that based on....., or, I would assign a probability of.. to it."
Tom,
"If you followed my philosophy, when you make a claim to know for sure (with certainty), you would substantiate this"
Ageed. That is fair. We are on the same page then.
I would just add two caveats.
The first one is that public information is not always available, and that fact doesn't necessarily mean that someone's claims should be dismissed.
For example, the person who shot the MH17 plane knows he/she did it. He/she could claim "I know who did it". Unfortunately, no one would be able to know wether he/she is lying, because there is no public information. Yet, he/she would be a very reliable source of information on MH17, irrespective of our awareness of that fact.
Another example: in my country, there is no trustworthy statistics on illiteracy rates. However, people who live here know it is high (some 30% to 50% adults don't know how to read or write). How we know it? Because we live here and personally witness high scale poverty and misery and etc. Our claim that "the illiteracy rate in my country is high" is highly reliable, even if there are no public information on that (or worse: public information deceitfully tells you illiteracy is low, on purpose). Of course, there is a big problem: if there is no public information, how other people would know we are reliable? Well, I don't know, but that is how things go in real life...
The second caveat is that rigour on evidence in a blog is very different from the rigour we find in academic environment, and that is not necessarily bad.
Some people do use blogs in a more rigorous way (like Bill Mitchell), but even in thoses cases blogs are not the same as academic research. Blogs are much messier, noisy, dynamic and democratic. Unfortunately, there are some problems, like random spam, disrespectful trolls, extremely ignorant people and also the crazy ones. Yet, they may drive interesting discussions and be meaningful to some people involved. Hence, I think that blogs have their value, even with all the possible problems. Even if rigour on evidence is not as high as it could be. The problem is when people simply disregard evidence completely...
The problem is when people simply disregard evidence completely...
They may be unaware of it, which is why reading widely is recommended to expose oneself to may sources and points of view.
There is culpable ignorance and circumstantial ignorance.
Some are unaware of evidence for the simple reason that they don't have the time to ferret it out if it is available and they also don't have the means to check evidence that is forthcoming. They is circumstantial and probably most people fit here unless they have special access.
Some just don't care or are blinded by unexamined cognitive-affective bias, which is blameworthy.
There is also disagreement over putative facts both within the same viewpoint and between conflicting viewpoints owing to different framing, e.g., spin based on selection of "facts" favorable to one POV while ignoring others as "irrelevant." There could be agreement on facts but not their relevancy or priority as causal factors.
For example, Matt conveniently divided the world in a way that supports his POV, allowing him to disregard others' views as "non-scientific" and "unqualified." Many of the rest of us call BS.
BTW, I am not knocking use of scientific method here. A lot of facts and causes that are anecdotal don't stand up to rigorous scrutiny. I would also include the scholarly approach, which is not necessarily "scientific" when the subject matter doesn't support that approach.
There is rigorous thinking based on investigation, explanations, and testing, and there is heuristic, which is generally all that is needed and it saves time and conserves resources, but it is not always helpful to rely on it. Most of the posting on the blogs falls in this category.
However there are also different degrees of critical thinking. The standard on blogs is a lot looser than in academia or professional life. But academics and professionals speaking in their field are still held to the high standards of their field, which they are presumed to know and observe. However, even academics and professionals disagree and can also be wrong. This is what open inquiry debate are about
All of the stuff that people put up that is beyond the scope of their expertise is opinion. Regardless of being correct or incorrect, it is still opinion and is not as authoritative as expert testimony. Opinion can be informed or not. There are different degrees of opinion based on rigor used.
Most that comment regularly on a blog rank other regular commenters along these lines, I would assume, and distribute their reading time accordingly.
Tom Hickey
You say: “All of us have a world view. World views differ, perhaps slightly but perhaps a great deal. We affiliate based on shared world views. If one beings to groups that don’t share a common world view. this creates some double binds and cognitive dissonance, or role-playing, These world views are ‘programed’ into the brain functioning. At the social level this results in group think and conflict within and among groups.”
Wow. And you found this out by stressing your two brain cells? Take notice that the difference between doxa = opinion and episteme = knowledge has been settled by the Greek philosophers more than 2000 years ago.
The guiding principle for establishing knowledge is the distinction between true and false: “There are always many different opinions and conventions concerning any one problem or subject-matter (such as the gods). This shows that they are not all true. For if they conflict, then at best only one of them can be true. Thus it appears that Parmenides … was the first to distinguish clearly between truth or reality on the one hand, and convention or conventional opinion (hearsay, plausible myth) on the other …” (Popper)
To deny the true/false demarcation means to kick oneself out of science. And this is exactly what you are doing.
It is rather trivial to state that there are a lot of different opinions around. Genuine philosophers went well beyond this triviality: “That the settlement of opinion is the sole end of inquiry is a very important proposition.” (Peirce)
In brief, Walrasianism, Keynesianism, MMT, Marxianism, Austrianism, Pluralism, Eclecticism is mere opinion and will find its final resting place at the Flat-Earth-Cemetery together with your silly anything-goes philosophy.
You say: “All of us have a world view”. What you call a “world view” is qualitatively not different from a bacillus fart. The representative orthodox and heterodox economist does NOT have a valid world view but is scientifically incompetent/corrupt. The proof is all over the econoblogosphere including MNE.#1, #2, #3
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 The scientific self-elimination of Heterodoxy
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-scientific-self-elimination-of.html
#2 MMT, Bill Mitchell, and the lack of basic scientific integrity
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/08/mmt-bill-mitchell-and-lack-of-basic.html
#3 You don’t see what you don’t see: censorship in the econoblogosphere
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/08/you-dont-see-what-you-dont-see.html
Wow. And you found this out by stressing your two brain cells? Take notice that the difference between doxa = opinion and episteme = knowledge has been settled by the Greek philosophers more than 2000 years ago.
Right, and most people today are completely unaware of this. They have been captured by "science" that is really pseudoscience.
I realized this in thinking about the history of science. Does anyone doubt that the science of 500 years from now will very different from science today or that people then will look back on our "knowledge" as quaint. They will get a big laugh over the idea of "the end of history," for example, just as we looking that the 19th c.pronouncement of some physicists just before QM and relativity came along that "everything had already been discovered."
Tom Hickey
You say: “Right, and most people today are completely unaware of this. They have been captured by ‘science’ that is really pseudoscience.”
Worse, they have been captured by ‘philosophy’ that is really pseudophilosophy. After the sciences and mathematics have left philosophy behind it is only a shadow of its former self and practically indistinguishable from journalism/propaganda/agenda-pushing.
The anything-goes philosopher Tom Hickey is a sad example of the political sellout of philosophy.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
Post a Comment