How about the science part of it?: "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." When you have a testable explanation and you test it and it fails the test decisively, it is clearly not "science" to keep repeating it as if it was certified truth. It is not science to trumpet discredited propaganda.
Economists do say things on the utility and efficiency of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. That's what the "moral science" part of it was about back in the days of Sidgwick, Marshall and Pigou. Their explanations may have been wrong. Some of them have been shown to be wrong. But that would be o.k. if the cumulative quality of knowledge was honored. What I object to is that propositions that have been demonstrated to be wrong (or inadequate) are recited as gospel by economists (not all economists, but some famous ones at prestigious institutions) without even acknowledging the criticism (let alone the disproof). The moral part of it is that these "errors" don't appear to be random, but are clustered on the side of justifying the rich getting disproportionately richer at the expense of the poor getting poorer. On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Ed Weick <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > Economics could still be considered a "moral science", given the prominance > of concepts like "growth" in economic analysis. Where it fails as a moral > science is in not having much to say on the morality of things like the rich > getting richer and the poor getting poorer, leaving that to politicians and > other social sciences. > > Ed > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Sandwichman <[email protected]> > *To:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME > DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION<[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:05 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Futurework] Professional Ethics (of economists) > > Either that or you're both obsessed with bedbugs... But, hey, to bring this > discussion back to where it started, I just want to mention that "economics" > sprung from "moral sciences": "The emergence of economics as a separate > subject (or Tripos, in Cambridge terminology) created intense debate over > its relationship with the existing organization of teaching through the > 'Moral Sciences' Tripos. John Neville Keynes, the father of John Maynard > Keynes, faced considerable mental and emotional anxiety in his attempt to > reconcile economic science with ethics and religion." (Martin Daunton, > "Welfare, Taxation and Social Justice") > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Ray Harrell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I should start reading from the top. I come in after teaching a class >> until nine and find that Ed commented on bedbugs first. Either he’s an >> artist or I’m an economist. **** >> >> **** >> >> REH**** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Ed Weick >> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:18 PM >> >> *To:* [email protected]; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, >> EDUCATION >> *Subject:* Re: [Futurework] Professional Ethics (of economists)**** >> >> **** >> >> Rat farming? How about bedbugs? They're making a comeback.**** >> >> **** >> >> Ed**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> ----- Original Message ----- **** >> >> From: "Mike Spencer" <[email protected]>**** >> >> To: <[email protected]>**** >> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:30 PM**** >> >> Subject: [Futurework] Re: Professional Ethics (of economists)**** >> >> **** >> >> > >> > Last night, I commented on Tom's reference: >> > >> >>> >> http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/2011/09/professional-ethics.html >> >> >> >> Over the past 30 years, the economics discipline has been >> >> systematically subverted....Many of the most prominent economists >> >> in America are now paid to testify in Congress, to serve on boards >> >> of directors, testify in antitrust cases and regulatory >> >> proceedings, and to give speeches to the companies and industries >> >> they study and write about with supposed objectivity. This is not >> >> a marginal activity; it is now an industry, run by a half dozen >> >> large companies. >> >> >> >> I didn't know that. Why does that remind me somehow of the privatized >> >> prison industry? >> > >> > Saw this on Slash/dot: >> > >> > How Bug Bounties Are Like Rat Farming 104 >> > >> > Posted by timothy on Tuesday September 20, @11:00AM >> > from the first-we-hypothesize-a-problem dept. >> > >> > Gunkerty Jeb writes "In a keynote speech at the United Security >> > Summit, Stephen Dubner, co-author of Freakonomics, drew parallels >> > between the increasingly popular (and successful) practice of >> > software vendors offering bug bounties and a new industry >> > springing up in Johannesburg, South Africa, where the population >> > has recently found itself beset with a growing rat problem. In >> > order to help mitigate their rodent problem, officials in >> > Johannesburg began offering a small monetary rewards for each dead >> > rat turned in. It was wildly successful, and it didn't take long >> > for fresh batch of entrepreneurs to pop up and exploit the >> > situation. Of course, I'm talking about rat farming. Evidently, >> > business minded individuals have taken to breeding rats, only to >> > kill them and turn them in for rewards. Obviously, rat farming is >> > somewhat unscrupulous, but security researchers are doing the same >> > thing: breeding bugs in the lab, then leading them to the >> > slaughter for a nice payday. And it's a good thing." >> > >> > Which probably isn't a totally new thing [1] but a reminder about how >> > that works with prisons, weapon systems and (allegedly) economists. >> > >> > The way it works out for (software-) bug hunting -- the relevance for >> > Slash-dotters -- seems to be free of the malignancy/fraudulence of rat >> > farming: >> > >> > >> http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/how-bug-bounties-are-rat-farming-092011 >> > >> > as one commenter there (somewhat intemperately) observes. >> > >> > So the question is: how do you structure privatization of prisons, >> > corporatized for-fee economics consulting or any such activity so that >> > it works like bug-hunting and not like rat-farming? Do we need to >> > somehow extract or sequester such activities completely from >> > capitalist incentives? >> > >> > >> > - Mike >> > >> > >> > [1] The Paris rat-catcher of circa 1689 in Stephenson's _Quicksilver_ >> > was already (and quite entertainingly) into rat farming. >> > >> > -- >> > Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~. >> > /V\ >> > [email protected] /( )\ >> > http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^ >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Futurework mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >> >**** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Futurework mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >> >> > > > -- > Sandwichman > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
