Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
| Duncan wrote: | | Economics has been an academic subject pretty much since the days of Adam Smith. It doesn't conform to your model of monolithic academic discipline but then again, neither do other social sciences like Psychology. It is also riven by internal feuding between different schools, for example the cognitive and humanistic schools to name but two. |
If I may be so bold, I will attempt to outline the conclusions, prevalent among us adherents of applied epistemology, regarding the inherent structural weaknesses of academia.
1. Those within a specific discipline lack the expertise to undermine the discipline.
Though debate always rages within a particular subject-area, practitioners of a given discipline cannot question the foundational paradigms of their particular discipline without excising themselves from the field by definition. Moreover, as each expert gains his credentials with other academics only with respect to his limited field, he loses his expert status the moment he removes himself from his accredited discipline.
2. Those in a position of authority lack direct contact with anomalous data.
As academic subjects are arranged in explicit or implicit hierarchy, deference must be shown to the conclusions of paternal disciplines. Only those with particular expertise in higher-disciplines are qualified to question the merits of the paradigms from which the sub-disciplines are derived. Yet here, deference to the authority of tradition prevails (the longer a paradigm remains unchallenged, the less likely is it to be challenged), especially as the higher-disciplines are alienated from the particular anomalies to which their conclusions give rise within the sub-disciplines it has spawned.
3. Though specialists defer to generalist authority, generalists must defer to specific expertise.
Not only do the general practitioners seldom encounter specific problems in the course of their research, in so far as they may be aware of a particular problem, consultation with the experts in the specific sub-domain will return one of several models developed internally to resolve the problem. And the generalist is in no position to question the models arrived at by the experts in the specific field. Each defers to the proper authority of the other, ensuring persistence of the error.
How problematic these structural problems are for a given discipline, of course, depends on the soundness of the foundational paradigms.
It may be that a particular discipline (such as economics) is founded on solid, empirical principles and thus may eventually resolve all of its various controversies internally, without deconstructing itself (though the long standing and no-sign-of-being-resolved clash between Marxists and their opponents at least suggests that something may be inherently wrong with certain principles, taken as foundational to both sides). On the other hand, if there is a problem with the principles that, by definition, practitioners of a given discipline take for granted, we cannot hope to see those problems corrected by the experts in that field. It's just not possible.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| And don't come over all endogenous with me, they all believe in the reality of the Trade Cycle |
We call it the business cycle now and no, they don't all believe in the reality of it. Before Keynes the Economic system was believed to be entirely self-regulating, though Marx and his followers had been shouting from the sidelines about the declining rate of profit and the inherent instability of capitalist accumulation.
The New Classicals, really from the mid-70s onwards, have been arguing for a return to the pre-Keynesian Classical orthodoxy. The business cycle is caused by two things, supply-side shocks which can briefly de-stabilise the smooth operation of market forces and more fundamentally the attempt of Government to interfere with the self-same market forces. Government and supply-side shocks are entirely exogenous to the functioning of the market economy. Remove the obstacles to market forces and you remove the problem. This is called General Equilibrium Analysis.
| All this is ditto for all the social sciences. Their inmates naturally think of themselves as wildly diverse but that just reflects the fact that the actual amount of verifiable data (verifiable significant data) is so startlingly thin in any of them. In other words they shouldn't be academic subjects either. |
So let me get this straight. All the social sciences shouldn't be classed as academic subjects? All the work of many people over many years dismissed, just like that. I give you examples of academic subjects that don't conform to your model and you tell me they're not academic subjects. Genius.
| The fact that, pace Smith et al, there was no such thing as academic Economics when Marx was writing, makes his latter day disciples easy prey for any passing mildly leftist theorist. |
As a trained Economist you should know that Adam Smith is the Founding Father of the subject and he was a Professor at Glasgow University 300 years ago. That's over half a century before Marx began his Economic writings. Marx was writing against the prevailing orthodoxy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
