Economics — a science with wacky views of human behaviour
from Lars Syll
There is something about the way economists construct their models nowadays that obviously doesn’t sit right.
The one-sided, almost religious, insistence on axiomatic-deductivist modelling as the only scientific activity worthy of pursuing in economics still has not given way to methodological pluralism based on ontological considerations (rather than formalistic tractability). In their search for model-based rigour and certainty, ‘modern’ economics has turned out to be a totally hopeless project in terms of real-world relevance.
If macroeconomic models — no matter of what ilk — build on microfoundational assumptions of representative actors, rational expectations, market clearing and equilibrium, and we know that real people and markets cannot be expected to obey these assumptions, the warrants for supposing that model-based conclusions or hypotheses of causally relevant mechanisms or regularities can be bridged to real-world target systems, are obviously non-justifiable. Incompatibility between actual behaviour and the behaviour in macroeconomic models building on representative actors and rational expectations microfoundations shows the futility of trying to represent real-world target systems with models flagrantly at odds with reality. As Robert Gordon once had it:
Rigor competes with relevance in macroeconomic and monetary theory, and in some lines of development macro and monetary theorists, like many of their colleagues in micro theory, seem to consider relevance to be more or less irrelevant.
Leave a comment
—– look inside —– $5.94 / $20.00
—– look inside —– $4.90 / $8.00
—– look inside —– $15.99
—– look inside —– $5.99 / 12.99
—– look inside —– $5.93 / $12.99
—– look inside —– $4.97 / $9.90
—— Ugarteche, Puyana and Madi ——
Gerson Lima / Maria Alejandra Madi
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
————— Michael Hudson ————–
Maria Alejandra Madi / Jack Reardon
————- Edward Fullbrook ————-
—————— Steve Keen —————–
————— Richard Smith —————
————– Gustavo Marques————
– Victor Beker and Beniamino Moro –
————– Lars Pålsson Syll ————-
—————– Stuart Birks —————-
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Mauro Gallegati ————–
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Real-World Economics Review Blog 
Again and again – not a science but a pseudo-scientific discipline.
It would be very useful to introduce the term first principles into the discussion.
It an error to damn “axiomatic-deductivist” thinking. These two words can be used to describe
a totally valid analysis from first principles — a correctly constructed analysis that by definition requires no models.
It is the unfortunate fact that all conventional production theory is based on erroneous models — equilibrium analysis, presumable because it does not require calculus, only algebra
— production functions, all based on powers or logarithms of dimensional properties, both are elementary mistakes.
— believing, somehow some-when, that correlation, just might with sufficient luck, imply causation, all because the guess, just happened to be the appropriate relationship, despite the two previous points demonstrating that it is will always be impossible.
The previous reasons are those by which you should direct your criticism — onto erroneous models explaining their elementary mistakes.
My paper “Transient development — RWER−81” can be called “axiomatic-deductivist” analysis. It is devoid of models. It is rigorous and relevant. It spans the full range of production. It has no representative agents. It describes physical possibilities only.
It is the counter-example to conventional analysis. That alone is sufficient to invalidate conventional analysis.
That’s a very good beginning of a description of a Wisdomics.
Cogniting on the monetary policy significance of the point of retail sale is the re-discovery that will cut the Gordian Knot that keeps the fallacious Quantity Theory of Money and the orthodoxy of the misnomer of monetary inflation in supposed tug of war.
Articles on this blog repeatedly go on about how modelling macro phenomena by simulating micro representative actors doesn’t work. Hold on! It doesn’t work because the way economists go about this (as far as I know) is rubbish: The actors are too simple and too uniform, the simulations are too small, and there’s no attempt to fit models to reality.
Try applying this technique in earnest. Make large-sale simulations of randomly varied actors, and give each of them a package of complex motives. Model 2nd and 3rd level phenomena like marketing and imitation. Start with modelling a specific population and time period that transpired in the recent past past, initially informed by statistical data and common sense, and then tweak the actors until the macro simulation matches historical reality. Run many variants of the assumptions using generic algorithms to be sure that you have convergence and didn’t just luck out. Then you may have a model with some predictive power applicable to some real-world domain.
And then it may still not work. Economic behavior may be just too emergent to model this way. But we don’t know that. We’ve not heard why micro modelling cannot possibly work, only that it doesn’t work when done in an obviously ineffective way.
That’s a very good scientific suggestion. Another way to approach the problem is to find a stable and relevant micro foundational datum and point in time where all agents are terminatedly and willingly participating and are also in agreement about an economic decision….like at the point of retail sale…and then craft monetary policy there that recognizes that both the pricing and the money systems are digital and so are able to resolve the major chronic problems that modern economies are afflicted by.
Pavlos, what you describe is referred to as backcasting by modeling professionals. Modelers don’t use the terms micro and macro. They don’t accept this distinction. Actions are modeled in relation to one another over time. Most modelers also don’t deal with the notion of causation. The objective is to create models that depict actions following on one another over time. For example, what happens to different sorts of communities that have poverty, pollution, etc. over time. Using computer models the actors and actions can be constructed in whatever fashion the modeler fancies. A common route to assess whether what we put into the model provides results useful in things like testimony, policy development, writing legislation, etc. is backcasting. Here the model is applied to an historical period for which complete (or near complete) data for the areas that concern the modeler and/or policy makers appears to be accessible. The results of the model are compared with historical data. The model is modified through insights and skills that come only with study and experience until the results are “close enough” (again only with study and experience) to historical data. There are two main challenges with backcasting (aside from gaining the needed experience and insights). First, is the historical data acceptable? Often there are numerous versions of historical data from which to choose. Second, which of the various versions of “close enough” agreement between model and historical results do we select? There’s no right answer. It’s a pragmatic choice based on what seems to work best in different situations.
Models and theories are the chaff of science and research, paradigm perception is the 24 carat gold of same. Why? Because theories come and go, or in the case of neo-liberalism stay way beyond their efficacy. On the other hand even though it’s an affront to the merely scientific mind (and historically verifiable)….everything adapts to a new paradigm….not the other way around.
Craig, according to Kuhn, a scientific paradigm includes the practices that define a scientific discipline at a certain point in time. Paradigms contain all the distinct, established patterns, theories, common methods, and standards that allow us to recognize an experimental result as belonging to a field or not. Per Kuhn, science proceeds by accumulating support for hypotheses which in time become models and theories. But those models and theories themselves exist within a larger theoretical framework, the paradigm. The paradigm is thus a culture, which scientists seek to extend. Kuhn is not wrong. Some sciences and portions of some sciences work this way. But others do not. This is what we learn when we study the actual practice of science. Rather, scientists in their work draw distinctions and establish associations or alignments between different paradigms. Scientists, particularly those who study science don’t like the public to know about such things, as they tend to threaten the public’s belief in and acceptance of science’s objectivity and certainty. It also makes those who support realism as the foundation of science nervous. If paradigm shifts change everything, bringing in an entirely new scientific culture, the theories of the last paradigm are wholly incommensurate with those of the new. This means what’s real changes, if you believe science is in touch with reality. Traditional views of scientific objectivity and rationality are wrecked as well. Thankfully, Kuhn’s notions on paradigms have been challenged successfully. Scientific practice, as opposed to Kuhn’s theory of it shows a multiplicity of paradigms, characterized by disunity, patchiness, and scrappiness. That’s why not everything adapts to a new paradigm.
That’s great. Where are these models and their results? For example we have austerity in most of Europe. Where are the technically credible, robustly converging, tested with back-cast data etc. simulation models that tell us unequivocally that this policy yields the best outcomes? Forgive me for thinking it’s just based on opinion or bias.
Similarly with tax cuts in the US, with the privatization of utilities, or with ever strengthening IP enclosures. Where is the heavy-duty modelling, not a few algebraic equations, that allegedly informs and justifies these policies?
Take a look at the channel Two Minute Papers: https://www.youtube.com/user/keeroyz It’s delightful. When population-scale economic models match the realism at which other scientists model fluids or machine vision we can talk about these models being relevant to policy.
Note that this is a critique within the domain of micro-foundational modelling that its efforts, as far as I lay person can tell, are hopelessly under-par. There could be an external critique of aims or philosophical basis later, but for now all we can say is the profession has refused to develop the technique beyond conceptual illustrations.
Pavlos, it’s unlikely the decisions about austerity or any other specific policy came out of a model. Models cannot provide that level of clarity. Models deal mostly with possibilities and potentialities. It’s still the operators of the models who must choose which of the possible scenarios from modeling should be implemented. With, of course the information models provide on potential results of each policy option. For example, no model ever concluded that leaving the sale and transfer of electricity, oil, coal, etc. to markets provided a clearly better result. Models inform researchers and policy makers. They don’t make decisions for them. AB 1890 (made retail electricity sales in California competitive 1996) was supported, not mandated by some modeling, tagged as poor option by other modeling. I did a lot of the modeling for the latter. We testified before CA’s Senate and Assembly, but soon found the decision was part of bandwagon effect from national changes (Energy Policy Act of 1992). One more example. Privatization of utilities has been modeled hundreds of times, using the most current complex social system models. No model run has ever found it beneficial either in terms of cost or democratic control. And today’s complex social system models consider social and political divisions. Don’t blame the modeling. It warned us.
“Craig, according to Kuhn, a scientific paradigm includes the practices that define a scientific discipline at a certain point in time.”
Yes, that describes a current paradigm.
“Paradigms contain all the distinct, established patterns, theories, common methods, and standards that allow us to recognize an experimental result as belonging to a field or not.”
Correct again, about current paradigms, but not of new ones.
“Per Kuhn, science proceeds by accumulating support for hypotheses which in time become models and theories. But those models and theories themselves exist within a larger theoretical framework, the paradigm. The paradigm is thus a culture, which scientists seek to extend.”
Okay.
“Kuhn is not wrong. Some sciences and portions of some sciences work this way. But others do not. This is what we learn when we study the actual practice of science. Rather, scientists in their work draw distinctions and establish associations or alignments between different paradigms. Scientists, particularly those who study science don’t like the public to know about such things, as they tend to threaten the public’s belief in and acceptance of science’s objectivity and certainty. It also makes those who support realism as the foundation of science nervous.”
There are paradigms as in specific ideas and modes of operation within sciences/disciplines like the scientific method, and then there are full blown paradigm CHANGES which at the very least within the area of human endeavor/body of knowledge the new paradigm applies to does indeed change everything conceptually and also is such a dramatically progressive step forward that no one and nothing ever goes back to utilizing the old paradigm ONLY. Such a paradigm change, if it occurs within an area that effects enough human activity and has been ripe for a new paradigm for a long time, also can bring dramatic “knock on” benefits in related
fields such as politics, finance, psychology, technology etc. ….and a new monetary and economic paradigm would be exactly one of these kinds of paradigm change.
As for making realists nervous, the breakthrough discovery of tying monetary policy in the form of a discount/rebate directly to the point of retail sale OUGHT to make allegedly realist macro-economists nervous. At least macro-economists who being abstractly thrice removed from the day to day operations of commerce, have thus missed that temporal reality. This discovery is not just some data point, it is a huge re-discovery and the policy itself defines the new monetary and economic paradigm.
“If paradigm shifts change everything, bringing in an entirely new scientific culture,” the theories of the last paradigm are wholly incommensurate with those of the new. This means what’s real changes, if you believe science is in touch with reality.”
A full blown paradigm change doesn’t “bring in an entirely new scientific culture”. For that to occur there would have to be a full blown paradigm change in the scientific method itself….which is something I’ve been advocating here for some time by the way in suggesting that the superlative human discipline of Wisdom be integrated into the scientific method.
“the theories of the last paradigm are wholly incommensurate with those of the new. This means what’s real changes, if you believe science is in touch with reality.”
Not necessarily true. Some of the theories of the old paradigm are invalidated, others that align partially with it are incorporated into the new. It’s true that what’s real changes in that a new paradigm is a new mental understanding of what is good, progressive, more applicable (and generally) more ethical in the temporal universe. This does not mean that aspects of the old paradigm must disappear. Hunting didn’t end with Agriculture. However, Agriculture replaced the PRIMACY of the old paradigm of which hunting was an integral and essential aspect.
“Thankfully, Kuhn’s notions on paradigms have been challenged successfully. Scientific practice, as opposed to Kuhn’s theory of it shows a multiplicity of paradigms, characterized by disunity, patchiness, and scrappiness. That’s why not everything adapts to a new paradigm.”
That is simply a description of the oft problematic scientific paradigm itself which is a trinity-fragmenting-reductionistic-temporal fact finding process of:
[ Hypothesis (true x untrue) ]
Thus its “disunity, patchiness and scrappiness”.
Wisdom on the other hand is an integrative trinity-unity-
oneness-wholeness process of:
[ (Scientific Method x Aspect of Consciousness) Wisdom ]
This formulaic process is useful for defining a genuine and specific paradigm itself as well as for the process necessary for paradigm perception.
A full blown paradigm change is a change in an entire pattern which by definition means everything relevant and within that pattern changes-adapts.
Craig, I’m taking my cues from Kuhn. He does not mention partial or selective paradigm change. Kuhn’s takes scientific paradigms as “all the distinct, established patterns, theories, common methods, and standards that allow us to recognize an experimental result as belonging to a field or not.” This is identical to the understanding of culture by humans. I’m an American because I believe in and live within American culture. Cultures gradually evolve and adapt, based on member actions and conditions that provoke change. Cultures also collapse and either go extinct, with surviving members attaching themselves to other cultures or they become so corrupted they devolve into anarchy (many Native American cultures from 1880-1950). If scientific paradigms are cultures, then all this can happen with them as well. One sign I am correct here is the “scientific method.” The only part of it that’s not changed since WWII is the word method. Hypothesis is more ontological today than following WWII, experiment’s definition has expanded greatly, and gathering evidence has added dozens of tools and processes. Like culture, there’s nothing formulaic about science. The power of science is in the imagination and creativity of scientists, which formulas quash. Science is neither a superhuman nor a subhuman culture. It is merely an extension and enhancement of human imagination and creativity. The important concern is the forms these take. Like capitalism or religion humans must choose what they want science to be and what they want it to do.
We could go on and on about this. Suffice it to say that the mindset of Science ONLY is part and parcel of what needs to be transcended (does not mean abandoned) exactly as the current paradigm of Debt ONLY does, and Nomadic Survival ONLY, Ego and Terra-Centric Astronomy ONLY and Hand Written and Oral Communication ONLY as current paradigms also needed transcending….in order to actually advance the species…instead of going through decades if not centuries of mental masturbation about 5000 year old problematic business models and their dominating and monopolistic paradigm; all the while being largely if not completely unconscious of both the current paradigm and having slight if any idea of its replacement….and then ending up with insignificant tweaks that parade themselves as new theories or even new paradigms.
We NEED new paradigm perception in economics….and that requires both the objectivity of science and the holistic mindset of Wisdom.
Craig, Sapiens’ survival has been based on imagination and creativity since the agricultural revolution 12,000 years ago. Now Sapiens faces threats to its survival from the very imagination and creativity that allowed Sapiens’ cultural adaptations. Some of these cultural changes threaten Sapiens’ physical survival. Among the threats economists work with daily are capitalism, consumerism, and bio-diversity destruction. These can be identified as paradigms, if you wish. These destructive theoretical constructs must be countered by constructs that support the survival of Sapiens and the planet upon which it depends. Economists can, if they choose, play an important role in building ways of life supportive of these goals, while helping Sapiens finds workable solutions for resource and economic distribution problems. But economists must choose this path, over the one they currently traverse. Otherwise, economists continue to be an enemy of Sapiens’ survival. We could attempt to convince economists to make such changes in course through education and “rational” argument. That has not worked. Many economists are too much attached to power and prestige, as well as the wealth from their plutocratic masters. I believe it’s time to discipline economists, as one would a child. With a combination of praise for steps toward Sapiens’ survival and punishment for attacks on Sapiens’ survival. We can also give economists actions to imitate. We know much human learning comes through imitation. That’s a task with which those who post here can help. This all means convincing economists to change long held belief systems and alter patterns of actions that have benefited them greatly over the last 100 years.
I’m agreeable with all of that. What I’m saying is this:
It’s a monetary economy….and that is fine as the invention of money facilitates trade, monetary distribution and resolving monetary policy distribution that dovetails excellently with another human invention, the digital means of determining profit or loss and costs known as double entry bookkeeping.
It is no coincidence that the “product” of the business model of Finance is Debt, that their paradigm is the virtual monopoly of Debt ONLY and that they dominate every other business model and probably 97-98% of the general populace.
Economists are guilty of a lot of things like ego-centrism, cowardice, alignment with wealth and power, physics envy, scientism…the list goes on. These are all barriers to necessary change, the last probably being the most subtle and yet most problematic….because it blocks consideration of the science inclusive superlative human mental discipline of Wisdom which enables man to discern the truths and highest ethical considerations in apparently opposing perspectives and so resolves/does not palliate longstanding problems in whatever area of human endeavor it is applied to. This would be a Wisdomics.
The pinnacle concept and experience of Wisdom according to all of the world’s major wisdom traditions is grace-graciousness. An aspect of grace is freedom, and economically that translates to free gifting and dynamic free flowingness. Grace of course is about abundance. As per above it is also the dynamic ongoing integration of apparent opposites resulting in the best integration of the ideal, the pragmatic and the ethical…..in the temporal universe, i.e. where action and change actually takes place. Hence grace-graciousness is of the highest human and systemic relevance.
Finally, grace-graciousness is both mentally unitary-unifying and also the highest survival consideration, so that even within individual monetary abundance, tremendous technological productivity and innovation and the complete finance-ability that a sovereign public utility fiat money system would bring, the consequent mental understanding it also brings….not only would not conflict with an ecologically sane mindset, but would actually make it more acceptable and more likely.
Craig, you’re proposing massive cultural changes. All well and good. But how do you propose economists be “convinced” to propose and implement them? Cultural changes are difficult in the best of circumstances. And these are not the best of circumstances.
Well actually looking at the retail sale discount/rebate policy by playing the actions out between three people the retailer, the consumer and the monetary authority executing the policy might be a real good start. That in itself could pop economists and pundits out of their obsessively abstract theorizing fugue and enable them to realize how economically powerful such a policy could be for them, for everyone else, for enterprise and for the entire system. As I said cogniting on the significance of monetary policy tied directly to the point of retail sale is not just some data point in a theory, rather its immediate and “knock on” effects, especially if paired with a universal dividend policy, are deep, long and paradigm changing. Furthermore philosophically and policy wise it aligns with lesser policy suggestions advocated by leading edge heterodox economists (anti-austerity, UBI, governmental monetary stimulus, one off debt jubilees, financial parasitism etc. etc.).
Then, you’d think, economists could get together and unify their efforts to educate the general populace about the terrific benefits of these two policies and create a mass socio-economic movement out of it. Call it Operation Monetary Grace As In Gifting or something…and change the friggin’ world. Crisis IS the best time to effect change and we are many and Finance is relatively few….and ethically compromised.
Craig, interesting notions. Frankly, I don’t want economists or retailers, and certainly not the monetary authority to have more authority. I want them to have much less authority. Two things I’ve learned about shaking people out of fugue states it isn’t voluntary and they hate you for it. You make the same flawed assumption as mainstream economists – that human actions, especially economic ones are rational. They seldom are, particularly where great power and privilege are concerned. I give credit to your focus on the actual relationship of buyers and sellers. This process is complex and culturally situated. In other words, it is part of culture. Which means the processes can change or be changed only by changing the culture. So, whatever economies and economic actions look like today, whatever they pursue or want today, whatever justifies them today cannot be the same when the culture changes. My preference for future economies and economists is they be focused on a communitarian lifestyle, with cooperation and mutualism emphasized over competition. They also need to create a smaller environmental footprint and reject every aspect of the Kantian and neo-Kantian assumptions that have dominated western civilization for 300 years. And they need to be democratic and fully transparent. With these changes, humans might just last out the next century.
Again, my policy suggestions are not notions. Look at their immediate temporal effects.
Retailers don’t have any additional authority with my policies, and the authority of the monetary authority is based upon, aligned with and immediately systemically effects the highest concept humanity is capable of attaining. Economically we need to “hitch our wagon to the stars”. Graciousness, and economically implementing grace as in monetary gifting is the only concept capable of spanning and integrating self interest and The Good. In fact the concept of grace IS the continual dynamic process of integrating opposites whether individually or systemically. Am I just some airy-fairy philosopher? No. The policies of grace implemented at a stable ending point in the otherwise complex flurry of activity in the economy, i.e. retail sale EFFECTS monetary grace. If individuals are not immediately gracious as a result…is irrelevant….and largely remediable by further regulation and acculturation. The point is the following question:
Would graciousness be more likely to grow to become the ethic if the temporal systems of economics and money were indeed based on grace and its aspects, or lesser ethics like self interest only and/or profit and power that enforce chronic stress, monetary austerity, systemic servitude and hopelessness????? It’s a hard question to answer, I admit. :)
Craig, these are my specifics. My stance is deontological. By that I mean a rule-based morality where the rules specify moral obligations or duties. The rules bind us to duties. The neoclassical assumption that people render decisions rationally (no consensus definition in neoclassicalism) is replaced by the notion that people typically select means, not just goals, based on their values and emotions. Far from always “intruding on” or “twisting” rational deliberations, values and emotions render some decision-making more effective. This holds for noneconomic actions, such as courtship, and for economic behavior, say relationships with one’s employees or superiors. The circumstances under which people do act the way neoclassicists assume they generally behave—rationally (to one extent or another)—are accounted for in my proposed paradigm as expressing unseen duties, successfully performed or not. The neoclassical assumption that the individual is the decision-making unit, is changed such that social collectivities (such as ethnic and racial groups, peer groups at work, and neighborhood groups) are the prime decision-making units. Individual decision-making often reflects, to a significant extent, collective attributes, and processes. Individual decisions do occur, but largely within the context set by various collectivities. The same holds for the relationship between society and the market as a sub system. The market economy is not a separate system, a system that is basically self-containing, and whose distinct attributes can be studied using a perfect competition model. I replace this with the economy as a subsystem of a more encompassing society, polity, and culture. The processes of the economy, including the extent to which it is competitive, cannot be studied without integrating social, political, and cultural factors into one’s paradigm. Moreover, in my paradigm social collectivities are not just aggregates of individuals, but structures of their own, structures that place individuals (and other subunits) not according to their individual attributes, and which deeply affect their dealings with one another. The significance of structure is highlighted by the study of one major structural attribute, the political power of select economic actors. Instead of taking the economy as basically competitive, and hence that economic actors (mainly firms) are basically subject to “the market,” possessing no power over it (monopolies are regarded as exceptions and aberrations), power differences among the actors are congenital, built into the structure, and deeply affect their relationships. Power differentials are gained both by applying economic power (the power that some actors have over others, directly, within the economy) and by exercising political power (the power that some actors have over others, indirectly, by guiding the government to intervene on their behalf within the economy).
Ontology-Consciousness-Beingness is a necessary factor no matter whether one considers it supernatural or utterly natural. It exists. It is. It’s an ever present reality. Rational expectations as an economic assumption and an ideology is deeply flawed of course, but consciousness and its archetypes, i.e. the aspects of grace are powerful and the more we integrate with and tap into them the more they beneficially effect us. Grace as a rigorously examined and contemplated philosophical concept is cosmic….and you can’t get any more powerful than that.
Pavlos, I appreciate your contributions. Unlike Ken, I myself accept the terms ‘ micro’ and ‘macro’, using them to distinguish models based on individuals (logical 1’s) from those based on innumerable total populations (logically ‘all’). What is true of all is true of any (though it
may not be much). The fallacy in micro-foundations is that what is true of 1 (or even many) is not necessarily true of all, no matter what one is talking about. It may possibly be; but as you say, “And then it may still not work.”
It seems to me Frank Salter wanting to start from dimensional analysis and Craig going on about the joys of understanding paradigms are both looking in right direction, if somewhat incoherently. Where do the dimensions come from? and how can we share each other’s thoughts unless we communicate them inter-personally via some form of message?
I myself define Frank’s dimensions in the language of Cartesian coordinates and accept the possibility of change from the evidence of it happening: this leading to the four colours mapping theorem which has only recently been proved, though I can show which it applies at successive levels of evolution much as a decimal number continues to use the same procedure as it evolves from ones to tens to hundreds etc. still using the same set of numerals. A more visual analogy is offered by a jig-saw puzzle in which the four interlocks suffice to define the picture even if there isn’t one, ie. the picture is turned over. In the immaterial communication theory needed to account for removing the uncertainty from Craig’s messages the logical equivalents of these are the three feedback circuits correcting errors in the carrier signal.
“Then you may have a model with some predictive power applicable to some real-world domain”? No.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUEWLqY9DEQ, 22-24 minutes),
Dave, your priority it seems is to settle on one privileged grouping for humans. But our common experience, if we are faithful to it, tells us that there are lots of contradictory group formations, group enrollment-activity to which social scientists are obviously crucial contributors. The choice is thus clear: either we follow social theorists and begin our travel by setting up at the start which kind of group and level of analysis we will focus on, or we follow the actors’ own ways and begin our travels by the traces left behind by their activity of forming and dismantling groups. There is no relevant group that can be said to make up social aggregates, no established component that can be used as an incontrovertible starting point. Dave, you begin with the theories that argue for macro and micro aggregates. I do not privilege any one aggregate form. I follow the work of the actors building and rebuilding aggregates.
Ken, misrepresentation again! My priority has nothing to do with privilege but everything to do with logic; nothing to do with enrollment in groups by prejudiced “social scientific” observers of appearances, but everything to do with living inside the dynamics of a family group within which people grow up and may even attain Craig’s wisdom; a system Claude Levi-Strauss at least recognised as the unit of society, in defiance of the social scientific assumption that the unit is its statistical characterisation of an individual. My priority is the reformation of our economic system because it currently prioritises state or business finance over the biological necessities and diversity of family and social life, and does so largely because of its mistaking the quantitative appearance of money for its movements, hence not seeing the direction in which it is flowing.
What gives me hope that change may be achieved is that this situation is analogous to that which led to the paradigm change we call the Copernican revolution. People busy with their own business just saw the stars in the sky. A few scientists of earlier days explained their apparent motion on the assumption that the massive earth stood still, but Copernicus saw that most of it was due to the earth rotating and it’s surface moving in the opposite direction. Most people now have learned to take this for granted. Likewise, we see wealth apparently going in the direction of money. The Copernican revolution here is seeing money created as credit, and so most of the responsibility for regenerating the wealth we are consuming on credit going in the direction of those who have acquired most of the credit. By now those studying economics should be taking this for granted, discussing its implications and comparing possible positive and negative (credit) money outcomes rather than allowing defenders of the status quo to mire us in diversions.
Frankly, Dave I see nothing logical in your position. Even if the use of the term logic is limited to ancient definitions. As an anthropologist I know the importance of “family groups.” But we shouldn’t forget that the term “family group” has been used to justify both great caring and great cruelty. So, we need to be quite specific in our use of the term. Families can form the basis of both humanistic societies and fascist ones. An Italian anthropologist responded that Italian national politics and government is so fragile because Italians focus too much on family and not enough on nation. Family may be the basis of human society and culture, but society and culture also come to encompass family. Family and individuals are embedded in national culture and society. Individual decision-making often reflects, to a significant extent, collective attributes, and processes. Individual decisions do occur, but largely within the context set by collectivities, including family, gender, class, and nation. I agree that current neoclassical arrangements (economic and otherwise) prioritize capitalism (particularly financial versions) over Sapiens’ biological and cultural evolution and history. I too wish to find ways to change this. My solutions arise from the ordinary people questioning these mistaken priorities and forcing change, even if that sometimes involves political and perhaps even physical conflicts. I won’t and wouldn’t say what these changes will be or their results. That will have to be worked out in “real time” as the process continues.
Ken, when I see you define what YOU mean by ‘logic’ and ‘solution’ I will be amazed.
Wrong button again! No. A paradigm is a working model which shows you what to look for; it doesn’t predict what you will see in any practical case. This one shows that if you want a system to work predictably you have to provide the necessary corrective information feedback circuits, i.e. controls; yet if you go too far with control you will get chaos. Even without noticing the difference between communication and interaction Steve Keen doesn’t think much of economists’ understanding of complex systems.
Whacky views of human behaviour? Our human mental architecture has four parts, three providing the feedbacks for the one which is in use. No wonder our behaviour is “whacky” when in our different specialisms we predominantly use only the same three of them.
Just picked up Kate Raworth’s book Donut Economics and Rethinking Economics.
https://soas.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=58b16af3-ea21-4117-ba93-a88a00d7119e
Ken on 4th March at 4.14 am, 4.53 am.
“My stance is deontological. By that I mean a rule-based morality where the rules specify moral obligations or duties. The rules bind us to duties.”
This is at least discussable, unlike Ken filibustering any other view. The reason I don’t go along with it is that it doesn’t specify (epistemologogically) where the rules come from or (ontologically) what they are . Following Ken’s argument it seems to lead to his accepting powerful personalities in positions of power imposing rules arbitrarily. Which is indeed what is happening, but that is the problem, not the solution.
“Frankly, Dave I see nothing logical in your position”.
This from a lawyer, not even cross-examining the defender but trying to discredit him in the jury’s eyes. My defence is that I spent half my career working with the developments in computing that stemmed from Bertrand Russell discovering a paradox in Frege’s “Sense and Reference” logic, even longer trying to understand the humorist G K Chesterton, an acknowledged master of paradox, and right now I am reading Fritjof Capra explaining how Eastern thinkers – in contrast to the Western ones who are making such a mess of our world – use paradoxical logic and jokes which require people to see the point for themselves. The point of Algol68’s Fregean logic and our indexed databases was summed up by a Zen master thus: “We need a finger to point the moon, but once it’s been seen we forget the finger”.
Let me draw the judge’s attention to a precedent to the case of Zimmermann and Craig vs. Taylor: St Paul at 1 Cor 1:21-29.
“Since in the wisdom of God the world was unable to recognise God through wisdom, it was God’s own wisdom to save beleivers through the folly of the Gospel. While the Jews demanded miracles and the Greeks looked for wisdom, we are preaching a crucified Christ: to the Jews an obstacle they cannot get over, to the gentiles foolishness. …”
The deontology of the Jews led them to a literal form of justice – “an eye for an eye”, whereas Christians are invited to consider exactly the same Commandments as fatherly advice, not needed if one lives by the ethic of [gratefully] loving God and other people as oneself.
Dave, leave it to the ancient Greeks to come up with some interesting notions, such as logic. In ancient Greece logic was “the word” or “what is spoken.’’ Over the years logic came to mean “thought” or “reason,” in the sense of the systematic study of the form of valid inference. A valid inference is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the inference and its conclusion. (Seen in such ordinary words as therefore, hence, ergo, and so on.) It is obvious that logic is not a universal way of thinking for humans.
Often the term logic is substituted for “human reasoning,” particularly in the west. Human reasoning, whatever we believe that to be ultimately arises from human community and human community is rooted in human history. Human history – biological and cultural – is the root of humanity. Studying the long interactive history of humanity is the only means we know to understand what happens and why it happens. That knowledge is uncertain and incomplete but it’s all we have. The “wisdom” of the Zen master or the cleric is no exception. My advice to you: stop trying to transcend human history. Morality – deontological or otherwise – arises from that history. Rules and rule following as well. And when these are used in everyday actions and thoughts, it is our experiences (history) we call on to interpret what they mean and how they ought to be executed. And if humans need a god or gods to assist them, they’ll invent them. All this gives humans great flexibility in how human communities organize their life, but at the same time virtually no certainty of where it’s all leading.
Nothing like a little anti-Semitism and religious bigotry to reveal a do as I say not as I do fruitless unspiritual lack of wisdom. Why don’t you leave your self-righteous posturing at the expense of others (like our Jewish brothers and sisters) out of your infantile attempt to win a stupid argument Dave. What next, some slight of hand insult aimed at our Muslim brothers and sisters?
Rob, in this context, there’s one observation often made on the execution of the “eye for an eye …” rule that seems relevant here. If applied strictly we would all be eyeless and toothless.
But yes, Ken, that is precisely the point. A sane father doesn’t apply justice strictly, and the more financiers insist on our paying off our personal or company debts rather than learning by striving to, the more care gets neglected and austerity becomes indigestible; the more eyeless and toothless copycat economics becomes.
Dave, yes this is the point. Neither history nor community assures or even seeks justice. That’s why humans invent things like morality and ethics. Imperfect for sure, but again all humans are capable of creating to guide their lives. And make no mistake, humans are the only source of their good and evil actions.
“Neither history nor community assures or even seeks justice. That’s why humans invent things like morality and ethics.”
That is the apparency, yes. The truth is that morals and their rational consideration known as ethics are an integral aspect of the cosmos itself…and consciousness enables one to become aware more of them.
Craig, the main difference between Sapiens and chimpanzees is how Sapiens create groups (families, villages, cities, nations) that hold together over time and changes in circumstances. In other words, community (society) is Sapiens’ great survival advantage. Community is based on culture. Culture is based on immensely diverse “imagined realities” invented by Sapiens. Once cultures appeared, they never ceased to change and re-invent themselves. These unstoppable alterations are what we call history. And all of this we can trace to the cognitive revolution of Sapiens of about 70,000-30,000 years ago. Before that Sapiens was in no way a special species. In fact, 75,000 years ago the best bet for the Homo species that would eventually dominate the world would be Neanderthals. We don’t know how or why the cognitive revolution occurred, but we do know it allowed Sapiens to gather and transmit large quantities of information about the world, including Sapiens social relations, and information about imagined things that humans invent, such as spirits, nations, LLCs, and human rights. This allowed Sapiens to plan and coordinate, carry out complex actions, create ever larger social communities, to cooperate, even with strangers, and to rapidly innovate social performances. This is how Sapiens came to be what we see today. No grace in this story. That is, till humans put it there.
There are none so blind as those who don’t want to see.
Repetition, they say, is necessary to teach the fools the rules, and the wise the lies. There are none so blind as those who think they see when they don’t. The golden rule is not some mysterious paradox of divine revelation only vouchsafed to Christians because the Jews deontology led them to a literal form of justice. This is nothing more than a self-righteous rhetorical ploy to win an argument. The golden rule, as the quotes below make clear, long preceded the origin of the new Jewish cult within Judaism that eventually became the Christian religion. The real mystery, the real paradox, is how in 2018 so many Christians are so truly ignorant of the roots of their own religious tradition when such a wealth of knowledge is out there for those who want to know.
The roots of the line Dave likes so much to parrot goes back to scripture:
“Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.” (Jer. 5:21)
The foolish remain without understanding even when standing in the face of fact, because in their sureness of knowing they are blind to the truth.
How about this one Mr. Taylor ? “And those mine ENEMIES who will not have ME as their sovereign, Bring THEM unto ME and slaughter THEM before ME” Guess which “testament” that gem comes from ? Luke 19:27. Guess who preached it ? But What about that talk about “loving one’s enemies” ? I guess it was not “unconditional” after all. Not to mention “Depart ye cursed to the everlasting fire. “Whosoever speaks against the holy spirit shall receive no forgiveness, either in this world or the next”. I could go on. But I’ll spare you {plural} further embarrassment. But how “off topic” can any body get ? ‘eh Messrs. Taylor and Zimmerman ?
But it’s a democratic country, gentlemen. You’re free to indulge any prejudice you please…Provided you don’t break the laws of the land. And your targets of opportunity are free to challenge YOUR moral blindness.. As long as we don’t step over the same line.
Please GOOGLE: Norman L. Roth
To bring the topic back around to economics, let’s consider George Bernard Shaw’s sophistic quip, a clever play against the surface of the golden rule, “Don’t do to other what you want other to do to you–their tastes may be different.”
Sorry, “other” should be “others” …
Jesus was a child of the Jewish people; he was a Jew, not a Christian. He drew upon the crème of Jewish scripture and tradition. Many Jewish men and women heard his teachings with gladness, and he was welcomed into many synagogues to preach his good tidings. The golden rule was uttered by a Jew. Jesus was drawing upon the Jewish tradition:
Many other examples of the spirit of this teaching can be found within the Torah and throughout the Jewish Wisdom literature. Far too often Christians have carelessly presented Jesus’ life and teachings as though they have no root in the soil of Jewish tradition. Jews practice an eye for eye, while Christians turn the other cheek. Yet, to make such facile comparisons is to do so while ignoring history and context. Jesus appropriated the cream of the Hebrew scriptures while ignoring the lesser. This is how religious geniuses in all religious traditions have throughout the mosaic of the ages uplifted their respective traditions. No religious tradition, or group of people, has a corner on compassion and mercy. If we widen our historical timeframe wide enough, we can find a period of history when any given religious tradition has failed to live up to its highest ideals. History, context, counts in more than just economics.
Anyone who as read the Jewish Wisdom literature cannot but observe that Jesus was intellectually and spiritually raised in a rich and deep tradition. The Second Century Wisdom literature reveals much about what Jesus must have known, steeped his mind and meditations and prayers within. Consider the Ben Sira text (190-175 B.C.E.):
Further:
“No one is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” Guess which tradition this comes from?