Murray
Rothbard made a succinct summary of Thomas Kuhn’s notion of
paradigms and some interesting comments about it related to economic
theory in his ‘Ludwig von Mises and the Paradigm of Our Age’
(here, also here).
Rothbard’s
summary: Professor Kuhn provided a comprehensive model of the
adoption and maintenance of scientific belief. He states that
scientists adopt a fundamental vision or matrix of an explanatory
theory, a vision that he calls a “paradigm.” And whatever it is,
it governs all scientists in that field without being any longer
tested or questioned, and further research comes from minor
applications of the paradigm, clearing up loopholes or remaining
anomalies. But gradually the anomalies pile up, and the paradigm
weakens. Rather than being give up, patches and ad hoc adjustments
are made. When the unresolved anomalies are big enough, a “crisis
situation” is recognized, until it can be replaced by a new,
comprehensive, competing theory that avoids or solves the
pre-existing anomalies. It’s a “scientific revolution.” Even
then, there remain those who hang on to the older theory, at least
partly.
Without
adopting Kuhn’s philosophical relativism, it becomes clear that
intellectual vested interests play a more dominant role than
open-minded testing, it may happen that a successor theory is less
correct than a predecessor. If true, we must be open to the
possibility that as discarded theories are forgotten and not looked
at again, they may have contained scientific truth.
To
whatever extent Kuhn’s thesis is correct about the physical
sciences, where empirical and laboratory tests are obtained fairly
easily, how much more it must be true in philosophy and the social
sciences, where no such laboratory tests are possible.
Until
recent decades, the classics of philosophy, political theory, and
economics were read not just for antiquarian interest but for the
truths that might lie there. The student of philosophy read
Aristotle, Aquinas, or Kant not as an antiquarian game but to learn
about answers to philosophical questions. It was not assumed that, as
in physical sciences, all the contributions of past thinkers had been
successively incorporated into the latest edition of the currently
popular textbook, and it was therefore not assumed that it was far
more important to read the latest journal article in the field than
the classic works.
In
recent decades the social sciences have been increasingly divorced
from reality. They substitute statistics for experiment, abstract
math, narrow specialties, writing technical minutiae for journals and
not writing treatises characterize the discipline.
Rothbard
continues, lamenting the effect on economics. “Of all the
tragedies wrought by this collective amnesia in economics, the
greatest loss to the world is the eclipse of the Austrian school.”
No comments:
Post a Comment