Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang
case study below considers the example ofTheeconomics—for better or worse—has strivedhowis sometimes proclaimed the mostEconomicsamong the human sciences, at leastrigorouseconomists. The issue of the supposedbyof economics is our entry point into therigourabout the contestable boundariesdiscussionthe natural and human sciences,betweenthe exchange between both of them andandmathematics.who believe in the rigour of economicsSomeit reflects a natural order of social reality.thinkmight think this false, even bizarre,Othersthe discipline’s repeated failure to predictgivenprevent economic crises. Critics point outandthis chasing of rigour has led to an over-thaton abstract mathematical models,reliancerather than producing predictions aboutwhich,couple of decades. Could mathematics helppasthuman sciences navigate and make sense oftheAnd critics have been sayingmethodology.for several decades, but change has beenthisThe 2009 global recession that wiped outslow.of dollars of savings, and precipitatedmillionsdebt crisis in Southern Europe, came just sixaafter a leading economist had proclaimedyearsthe “central problem of depressionpreventionthathas been solved” (Lucas quoted in2009). Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman,Krugmanof the most trenchant critics among theoneeconomists, has summed up as follows:leadingeconomics profession went astray because“theas a group, mistook beauty, cladeconomists,impressive-looking mathematics, for truth”in2009). Why were they impressed by(Krugmanmathematics?as a term was devised by Paul“Mathiness”an Economics Nobel Laureate, whoRomer,used it to describe a style of workoriginally“lets academic politics masqueradethatscience” (Romer 2015) by camouflagingasarguments in an ambiguous mixpoliticalwords and symbols, natural and formalofand theoretical and empiricallanguage,He argues that mathiness makes itcontent.to access and critique the economicsdifficultand gives the work an unearneddiscourse,of authority. Both of these—access andsenseto Krugman, there are strongAccordingand business incentives that propelpoliticalidealized vision of economies composedanfully rational agents—despite plentyofevidence to the contrary—and “fancyofhave obscured these less-tenableequations”assumptions in both academia andmodelTo make his long argument short,policy.asserts that mathiness is usedKrugmandefend faulty economics, including thetoI. ScopeI. Scopethe complexity of the world?to maintain its legitimacy and authority in theCase studyMathiness and physics envy in thehuman sciencesThere is an implicit pecking order among thesocial sciences, and it seems to be dominatedby economics. For starters, economists seethemselves at or near the top of the disciplinaryhierarchy. In a survey conducted in the early2000s, [David] Colander found that 77 per cent ofeconomics graduate students in elite programsagree with the statement that “economics is themost scientic of the social sciences”. Some fteenyears ago, Richard Freeman speculated on theorigins of this conviction. His assessment wascandid: ‘sociologists and political scientists haveless powerful analytical tools and know less thanwe do, or so we believe. By scores on the GraduateRecord Examination and other criteria, our eldattracts students stronger than theirs, and ourcourses are more mathematically demanding’.(Fourcade et al 2015)authority—are significant knowledge issues.the future, actually obscure a pseudo-scientificneoliberal paradigm.209
I. Scopecentral cause of the profession’s failure wasThedesire for an all-encompassing, intellectuallytheKrugman and Romer have said thatBothcan conceal political argumentsmathinessnaturalistic or empirical clothing. This isinproblematic because, in the wordsespeciallyJohn Rapley, a political economist at theofof Cambridge, “scientists areUniversityto reach their conclusions after doingsupposedand weighing the evidence but, inresearchconclusions can come first, witheconomics,gravitating towards a thesis thateconomiststheir moral worldview” (Rapley 2018).fitsthese theories with mathiness canDressingthem more convincing, or at least moremaketo critique.difficultis there evidence for the claim thatButlends the human sciences an auramathematicsauthority, deserved or otherwise? Consider,ofa minute, the pseudo-scientific claims,forby statistics, that are regularlysupportedin everything from advertisinginvokedpolitical debates. One is reminded howtoThomson, a renowned 19th-centuryWilliamknown for his work on the lawsscientistthermodynamics, had stated. “When youofmeasure what you are speaking about andcanit in numbers you know somethingexpressit; but when you cannot measure it … inaboutyour knowledge is of a meagre andnumbers,implications of measurement are exploredThesection III. The success of physics andinin explaining our world may havechemistryto a perception that mathematicalcontributedhave an authoritative force. Withinformulashuman sciences there is even a term forthe“physics envy”, used to criticize thethis,of complicated mathematics to appearoverusecan guarantee the semblanceMathematicsscience, and sometimes that is enoughofwhich a community organises its production.bynot accidental that Adam Smith, whose workIt’sWealth of Nations (1776) is often seen asThefounding text of economics, was a moraltheYet ever after, it was the holy grail ofphilosopher.to make their art into a science, usingeconomiststo uncover the codes supposedly buried in theiritof human existence. They experimentedheartmathematics and pondered Charles Darwin’swithin biology, but it would be the laterevolutioncentury before economics nally found a19thfor itself. It found it in physics. But … themodelvery term ‘social science’ is probably besttheas an oxymoron … in the 1970s, the NobelseenWassily Leontief warned against the driftlaureatehad begun in economics towards what wasthatand Romer have applied theKrugmancritique to their community ofmathinesseconomists, but it has beenprofessionalin other disciplines in the humaninvokedtoo. Steven Pinker’s book Thesciences,Angels of Our Nature (2011) used a vastBetteranalysis to argue that the present isstatisticalmost peaceful time in human history, andthea wide global audience including,impressedMicrosoft co-founder Bill Gatesapparently,the philosopher Peter Singer. However,andmethods were publicly criticized byPinker’sTaleb, an outspoken statistician, authorNassimprofessor at New York University. To whatandcould a layperson access and critiqueextentmethods? How would we knowPinker’sTaleb is right? For those of us who arewhethernon-experts, it can be difficultmathematicaljudge who is right and wrong, when bothtoappear to hold heavy-weight academicsides8to convince laypeople and academics alike.approach that also gave economists aelegantto show o their mathematical prowess.chance(Krugman 2009)has always been an ethical and socialEconomicsits purpose being to produce the rulesexercise,nature of human beings makes any lawssocialbehaviour tentative and contextual. In fact,ofsubsequently called ‘physics envy’.(Rapley 2018)unsatisfactory kind.”more rigorous.210
- Page 165 and 166: David Thoreau was a naturalist, wri
- Page 167 and 168: III. Methods and toolsdisasters are
- Page 169 and 170: IV. Ethicswe have an ethical respon
- Page 171 and 172: IV. EthicsSinger described conseque
- Page 173 and 174: IV. Ethics1962, generals seized pow
- Page 175 and 176: recent human activity called scienc
- Page 177 and 178: II. Perspectivessection explores th
- Page 179 and 180: II. Perspectivessaid to be in crisi
- Page 181 and 182: II. PerspectivesNewton’s theory?
- Page 183 and 184: II. Perspectives19th century reveal
- Page 185 and 186: II. PerspectivesWhat are some scien
- Page 187 and 188: II. Perspectivesof Duesberg’s pap
- Page 189 and 190: II. Perspectivesis a highly simplif
- Page 191 and 192: II. Perspectivesterms: Symphony ofS
- Page 193 and 194: II. Perspectivesorigin story of gen
- Page 195 and 196: II. Perspectivestechnical debates i
- Page 197 and 198: II. Perspectivesfar this section ha
- Page 199 and 200: II. Perspectivesthe kind of problem
- Page 201 and 202: III. Methods and toolsthe scientifi
- Page 203 and 204: III. Methods and toolsunrecognized
- Page 205 and 206: III. Methods and toolshas a number
- Page 207 and 208: III. Methods and toolsthe link to t
- Page 209 and 210: IV. Ethicswas the wartime head of t
- Page 211 and 212: IV. Ethicsan essential, imperfect a
- Page 213 and 214: 8Human scienceschapter is about the
- Page 215: I. Scopeof an idea or theory coming
- Page 219 and 220: I. Scopeidea of describing society
- Page 221 and 222: who had been placed at the ‘lower
- Page 223 and 224: explore perspectives on the existen
- Page 225 and 226: II. Perspectivesallegations of scie
- Page 227 and 228: we look at the simplifications that
- Page 229 and 230: II. PerspectivesIII. Methods and to
- Page 231 and 232: III. Methods and toolslack of diver
- Page 233 and 234: III. Methods and toolssensitivity
- Page 235 and 236: III. Methods and toolsMargaret Mead
- Page 237 and 238: III. Methods and toolstheir presenc
- Page 239 and 240: III. Methods and toolstold Mahbub,
- Page 241 and 242: III. Methods and toolsY. Thinley, a
- Page 243 and 244: III. Methods and toolsis the scope
- Page 245 and 246: III. Methods and toolssignificant c
- Page 247 and 248: III. Methods and toolsIV. Ethics7 d
- Page 249 and 250: IV. Ethicschange … brings togethe
- Page 251 and 252: last example brings together ideas
- Page 253 and 254: to show it how it was.” This was
- Page 255 and 256: I. Scope7 raises the question of wh
- Page 257 and 258: I. Scopeis more than a matter of po
- Page 259 and 260: II. Perspectivesqustion w xplord in
- Page 261 and 262: was not alon in rflting dply aoutCa
- Page 263 and 264: II. Perspectiveshistorial ontxt, ut
- Page 265 and 266: of Yugoslavia and th Sovit Union;ra
I. Scope
central cause of the profession’s failure was
The
desire for an all-encompassing, intellectually
the
Krugman and Romer have said that
Both
can conceal political arguments
mathiness
naturalistic or empirical clothing. This is
in
problematic because, in the words
especially
John Rapley, a political economist at the
of
of Cambridge, “scientists are
University
to reach their conclusions after doing
supposed
and weighing the evidence but, in
research
conclusions can come first, with
economics,
gravitating towards a thesis that
economists
their moral worldview” (Rapley 2018).
fits
these theories with mathiness can
Dressing
them more convincing, or at least more
make
to critique.
difficult
is there evidence for the claim that
But
lends the human sciences an aura
mathematics
authority, deserved or otherwise? Consider,
of
a minute, the pseudo-scientific claims,
for
by statistics, that are regularly
supported
in everything from advertising
invoked
political debates. One is reminded how
to
Thomson, a renowned 19th-century
William
known for his work on the laws
scientist
thermodynamics, had stated. “When you
of
measure what you are speaking about and
can
it in numbers you know something
express
it; but when you cannot measure it … in
about
your knowledge is of a meagre and
numbers,
implications of measurement are explored
The
section III. The success of physics and
in
in explaining our world may have
chemistry
to a perception that mathematical
contributed
have an authoritative force. Within
formulas
human sciences there is even a term for
the
“physics envy”, used to criticize the
this,
of complicated mathematics to appear
overuse
can guarantee the semblance
Mathematics
science, and sometimes that is enough
of
which a community organises its production.
by
not accidental that Adam Smith, whose work
It’s
Wealth of Nations (1776) is often seen as
The
founding text of economics, was a moral
the
Yet ever after, it was the holy grail of
philosopher.
to make their art into a science, using
economists
to uncover the codes supposedly buried in their
it
of human existence. They experimented
heart
mathematics and pondered Charles Darwin’s
with
in biology, but it would be the late
revolution
century before economics nally found a
19th
for itself. It found it in physics. But … the
model
very term ‘social science’ is probably best
the
as an oxymoron … in the 1970s, the Nobel
seen
Wassily Leontief warned against the drift
laureate
had begun in economics towards what was
that
and Romer have applied the
Krugman
critique to their community of
mathiness
economists, but it has been
professional
in other disciplines in the human
invoked
too. Steven Pinker’s book The
sciences,
Angels of Our Nature (2011) used a vast
Better
analysis to argue that the present is
statistical
most peaceful time in human history, and
the
a wide global audience including,
impressed
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates
apparently,
the philosopher Peter Singer. However,
and
methods were publicly criticized by
Pinker’s
Taleb, an outspoken statistician, author
Nassim
professor at New York University. To what
and
could a layperson access and critique
extent
methods? How would we know
Pinker’s
Taleb is right? For those of us who are
whether
non-experts, it can be difficult
mathematical
judge who is right and wrong, when both
to
appear to hold heavy-weight academic
sides
8
to convince laypeople and academics alike.
approach that also gave economists a
elegant
to show o their mathematical prowess.
chance
(Krugman 2009)
has always been an ethical and social
Economics
its purpose being to produce the rules
exercise,
nature of human beings makes any laws
social
behaviour tentative and contextual. In fact,
of
subsequently called ‘physics envy’.
(Rapley 2018)
unsatisfactory kind.”
more rigorous.
210