Hi Nick,

Yes, I've been following Paul Mason quite closely recently, but didn't
spot your letter.

Sure, economics "mistaking itself for a science", whilst at the same
time so much human endeavour (including science) is judged on economic
terms, is a root problem. There's even been a named coined for it
"autistic economics". Personally I prefer to widen the economics topic
to governance decision-making in general - and "mistaking itself for a
science" appears in my original agenda / manifesto. But we agree "that
kind of economics" is wrong.

I think you're right to focus on those real-life human problems of
living in the world and policies (and mechanisms) we use to arrive at
solutions. That's almost a no-brainer? What you don't seem to pinpoint
- in the letter or in your "AOR" thesis more generally - is what basis
there is for policy decisions at the highest level (in the AOR
architecture) that are any different to objective scientific
rationales. It's this latter point I choose to focus thinking about
rationale for governance "policy" decision-making.

But getting more people to see where the problem lies is always a good thing.
Ian

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Maxwell, Nicholas
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Friend of Wisdom,
>
>
>
>                                      Two or three days ago The Guardian,
> here in the UK, published a piece by Paul Mason – a journalist who writes
> about economic matters – in which he argued that we need a revolutionary new
> economic theory (after the 2007/8 crash) to help us deal with boom and bust
> – and he drew a dreadful analogy with revolutionary developments in physics
> associated with Einstein and quantum theory.  I was provoked to respond.
> Here is my letter to The Guardian (published yesterday):-
>
>
>
> “A far more fundamental revolution in economic thought is needed than the
> new theory of capitalism that Paul Mason calls for (To move beyond boom and
> bust, we need a new theory of capitalism, 23 March).  Ever since Adam Smith,
> economics has been pursued as a science, as a discipline that seeks to
> improve knowledge about economic phenomena.  But at the heart of the
> enterprise there is a problem of living, having to do with the creation and
> distribution of wealth – or, better, the sustainable creation and just
> distribution of wealth.  Granted that the task of economics is to improve
> our attempts at solving this basic, real-life problem, economics needs to
> give intellectual priority, not to theory or the pursuit of knowledge, but
> to (a) getting clearer what our economic problems are, and (b) proposing and
> critically assessing policies designed to help solve them.  Economics ought
> not to be thought of as a science at all.  Rather, its proper, fundamental
> task is to invent and critically assess policies from the standpoint of
> their capacity, if implemented, to help solve our real-life economic
> problems.”
>
>
>
>                                 As I see it, the transition from
> knowledge-inquiry to wisdom-inquiry requires a dramatic change in the nature
> of the social sciences.  These cease to be social science, and become social
> methodology, devoted to promoting more cooperatively rational tackling of
> problems of living in the social world, and devoted, too, to getting
> aim-oriented rationality into the fabric of social life, into other
> worthwhile, problematic institutional endeavours besides natural science:
> government, industry, agriculture, economics, the media, the law, education.
> It has long seemed to me that economics represents something like a
> paradigmatic case of what is required.  The discipline is invariably
> introduced as a science, as being devoted to the pursuit of knowledge of
> economic phenomena.  But here, above all, there is a definite, big problem
> of living at the heart of the enterprise, and what we require from the
> discipline of economics, surely, is rational thought about how to improve
> our attempts at solving this problem (as I say in my Guardian letter).
>
>
>
>                            Am I right?  Or is there a case for holding
> economics should continue to be pursued as a science?
>
>
>
>                              Best wishes,
>
>
>
>                                       Nick Maxwell
>
> Website: www.ucl.ac.uk/from-knowledge-to-wisdom
> Publications online: http://philpapers.org/profile/17092
> http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/view/people/ANMAX22.date.html
>
>