No. You start from the mistaken premise that the only kind of knowledge is science. Where would that leave history? Or the criticism of art and literature? The fact that Sir Ernst Gombrich or Eric Auerbach are superior to the average newsaper art or book reviewer is unarguable; yet what they write about is not quantifiable, experimentable and "certain" in any way that may be called scientific. I divide knowledge into three parts: science (the subject reflecting on an object outside itself - including the human body, when treated as different from the human being); human studies, or history (the subject reflecting on itself); and the arts - the subject reacting to, and adding to, reality. Human studies can come to conclusions that are true or false, but these conclusions are reached by a different route than that of science, namely discussion and consensus. In general, the study of history has confidence that truth, or a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable opinions, will emerge from the discussion of experts; and this ought to be the criterion in all human studies. The difference ought to be obvious. When the subject reflects on itself, the distance between subject and object does not exist, and any attempt to impose it artificially, as though the psychologist or the historian or the economist were not speaking about him/herself first and foremost, is a pharisaic attempt to place oneself beyond the ruck of common humanity, and has no more scientific validity than any other Pharisaism. The only way for the subject to reach even partial clarity about itself is by enlightened discussion and fearless criticism. Any claim of scientific validity threatens such criticism, by placing one theory above another; ultimately, this is the same kind of Pharisaism that leads one subject to discuss as though he were no part of humanity.
When you speak about economic theory being science, you only mean the economic theory you accept. You know perfectly well that my description of many (by no means all) economic theories as rationalizations - a description I would extend across the board to psychology, sociology and history - is true and answers to the facts. But the only way that one economic theory can be told from another is by the very unscientific test of whether they suit fallen and sinful man, which is the core issue of what I called enlightened debate between experts.
Beware of treating economic theory - meaning your favourite economic theory - as revealed truth. Beware of using it as an argument-ending point. You are in grave danger of doing exactly what should not be done - placing your rationalizations in the place of unchallengeable truth; standing the abomination where it ought not.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Cannot be?
Date: 2008-10-14 03:46 am (UTC)When you speak about economic theory being science, you only mean the economic theory you accept. You know perfectly well that my description of many (by no means all) economic theories as rationalizations - a description I would extend across the board to psychology, sociology and history - is true and answers to the facts. But the only way that one economic theory can be told from another is by the very unscientific test of whether they suit fallen and sinful man, which is the core issue of what I called enlightened debate between experts.
Beware of treating economic theory - meaning your favourite economic theory - as revealed truth. Beware of using it as an argument-ending point. You are in grave danger of doing exactly what should not be done - placing your rationalizations in the place of unchallengeable truth; standing the abomination where it ought not.