The "ist" of science and the "ist" of ideology
Bits and pieces of talk around the way about "is economics a science and if so why to economists disagree so much and so loudly?".
This confusion disappears if you make sure to remember that the "ist" at the end of the word "economist" should be taken not as analogous to "scientist", but rather to "Trotskyist". Robert Conquest was an expert on socialism, but not a socialist; seemingly someone like Tim Worstall (who has no economics degree and, frankly, no realistic prospect of getting one from any university of better-than-sickening quality) is perfectly right to call himself an "economist", while someone like me (who has two economics degrees and makes a living doing a form of economics) probably isn't.
Update: Worstall writes in, in comments, to say that he does have a degree in economics, from the LSE! Well I'll be a monkey's uncle. While this doesn't actually change my view of his knowledge of economics (how could it, he posts the evidence every day on his blog), I am clearly in the wrong here and apologise. Tim also says that he has never claimed to be an economist, although my whole point here is that he should do. The term "economist" has lost all meaning in terms of technical ability these days and simply refers to a party affiliation. Words drift and this one doesn't mean the same thing it used to. Tim, Megan McArdle and Richard Posner are all economists. I'm not one. Paul Krugman isn't any more. Brad DeLong is only just one.
Further update: By way of clarifying my earlier apology, which some commenters have deemed inadequate, I genuinely do apologise for any insinuation (which was honestly unintended) that Tim might have been trading under false credentials as an economist. I can see how it kind of reads that way, and obviously that would be a really serious accusation of the sort which shouldn't be made on the basis of the amount research I did, ie none whatsoever. So sorry Tim.
By way of clarifying my earlier non-apology, I still think the standard of his economics is dreadful, and TW has handed out enough "Economic Idiot" awards to people who know more than himself that I think he can wear that one.
no realistic prospect ... better-than-sickening quality
ReplyDeleteAren't you being very unfair to the Open University?
What, Worstall has got an OU Economics degree? I am truly shocked.
ReplyDeleteFive years ago when I denied that economics was a science people sneered at me. Now I'm cutting edge, and people will have to find different reasons for sneering at me.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations, dd; you have come up with a definition under which McMegan qualifies as an economist.
ReplyDeleteAhem.
ReplyDeleteI always define myself as "not an economist", simply an interested amateur, on precisely the grounds that my economics degree from the London School of Economics is not sufficient for me to be described as an economist.
"seemingly someone like Tim Worstall (who has no economics degree and, frankly, no realistic prospect of getting one from any university of better-than-sickening quality) is perfectly right to call himself an "economist","
Only a few errors in there then.
The people Lenin accused of economism were not economists. Many scientists (though not Dawkins) are innocent of scientism.
ReplyDeleteIsn't DD's point that the people Lenin accused of economism WERE economists, in DD's sense, if only a quasi-lefty sub-set of them?
ReplyDeleteI wasn't contradicting, just exemplifying.
ReplyDeleteOh great, no sooner does LSE have to deal with one scandal, than another comes along.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's good to know standards there haven't dropped.
ReplyDeletecareful, a bit more of this and you'll start making me want to defend Tim Worstall
ReplyDeleteRe that 'apology': were you Mrs Merton's scriptwriter or something? Cheeky fucker.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering how many economics books one has to write before you stop calling yourself 'an amateur' and switch to 'a professional'.
ReplyDelete(Presumably just one; but it would have to contain some actual economics, and be a paid gig.)
I don't know. Would you call yourself a "professional economist" if you made part of your income from writing a daily blog about economics? How about if you then moved the URL of that blog and turned it into a link-farm for spam?
ReplyDelete"By way of clarifying my earlier non-apology, I still think the standard of his economics is dreadful, and TW has handed out enough "Economic Idiot" awards to people who know more than himself that I think he can wear that one."
ReplyDeleteFair point.
"So sorry Tim"
ReplyDeleteAre you sure you didn't mean "So, sorry Tim"?
I'd hate to see you really grovelling to TW, otherwise.
I did. So, sorry, Tom.
ReplyDeleteChrist, I know this comment is wearily predictable, and is only going to be met with derision, but what proportion of economists - meaning academics, those employed by governments, banks, NGOs etc. - resemble Tim, Megan, Fama, Posner etc. in their thinking? I reckon under 50%. Economists are just as prone to ideological blinkers as everybody else, including sociologists, political scientists, philosophers. De Long and others are not the lone crusaders they portray themselves as - very many mainstream, high profile economists - are closer to De Long than his foes. examples are everywhere. Here's one - the author of the mainstream graduate level macro text book:
ReplyDeletehttp://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2011/03/16/an-important-starting-point/
where does this insistence on biased sample selection come from?
If Tim doesn't think of himself as an economist, why does he quote this down the side of his blog?:
ReplyDelete"Tim Worstall is a darn good economist"- Don Boudreaux
On behalf of Trotskyists I must protest . . .
ReplyDeleteTim does claim he's an economist from time to time and I guess you're right to say he should do, especially now his book is out. But I thought a Phd was the normal requirement nowadays.
ReplyDeleteHasn't the author of this blog referred to himself as an economist in the past?
ReplyDeleteProbably, yes.
ReplyDelete"what proportion of economists... resemble Tim, Megan, Fama, Posner etc. in their thinking? I reckon under 50%"
ReplyDeleteSurely it's a lot less than 50%. Some academics at GMU in the states, and...? I dunno--but I can't imagine any mainstream economists proudly displaying praise from Don Boudreaux on their blogs. On the other hand, DeLong really is mainstream. Just look at his publications.
I was one of the people who sneered at the opinions of John Emerson regarding economics and dismissed them as reactionary. Nowadays I'm not so sure.
ReplyDeleteIf economists are more ideologists than scientists, then is there a fair response to the John Emersons of the world who contend that economics has had on the whole a negative influence on the world and that we'd be better off with nothing?
I just wanted to be an anonymous and diligent bean-counter, but lately I've been thinking I'd do a whole lot more good in the world by abandoning my current program and enrolling in nursing school.
"is there a fair response to the John Emersons of the world who contend that economics has had on the whole a negative influence on the world and that we'd be better off with nothing?"
ReplyDeleteYes. In the early 19th century doctors had the same insight (the search string is "therapeutic nihilism") but they didn't give up on medicine as a science. In fact, it was the first step in turning medicine into a science in the first place.
Are you granting the useless and harmfulness of econ to date, YR? Because that's all I want.
ReplyDeleteI have no opinion about things that don't exist yet.
Given that economists currently seem to be trying to infect/take over the one social science that is scientific (cognitive psychology), I think stopping them has to be priority currently.
ReplyDelete