Doing my best to prevent the internet from becoming one big f@cking cat meme!
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Creationism and the economy.
Bill Nye makes the connection between science, creationism, politics and the economy. Rubio is not only wrong about the age of the earth (since when does Rome teach literalism?), he's also wrong about the impact of such thinking on the future of the economy.
I think this 'Rubio incident' evinces a lack of charitable interpretation.
It's tiresome to have to make such preliminary qualifications, but I don't have any fondness for Rubio, nor do I dispute what 'Science' currently postulates for the age of the World.
Anyhow, we seem to have here 2 different senses of "The Economy." Nye's seems to be something like "the aggregate of wares which are produced and offered to market (and the techniques for manufacturing them)," notably 'gadgets' which obviously exemplify modern technologies. Rubio is bit harder to pin down, but he seems to be alluding to "The Economy" in terms of the market matrix, sc., the system of buying and selling itself which we denote as the 'free market." Of course an entire 'ideology' is revealed when this notion is unpacked; e.g., it is alleged that this system primarily requires the freeing of entrepreneurial energies (with, consequently, little management or interference from the State).
So, Nye's "economy" accents the overtly scientific-technological character of much of what we buy and sell, and Rubio's would underscore the institutional underpinnings which allow and encourage economic dynamism. In other words, their respective emphases flow out of deeper 'visions' of what is ultimately characteristic and determinative of -- what is essential about -- our economy.
I take it that it's uncontroversial that, whatever other shortcomings it evinces, Rubio's refusal to recite the current scientific catechism doesn't obviously impair his ability to dispute over 'the economy' as he apparently is using the term.
That's a really good distinction, thanks. Do you think the two notions of economy are related--perhaps as content and form? If so, do you think there is a connection between the rejection of science and the economy in Rubio's sense (even if tenuous)?
Good thought -- form/content strikes me as a useful way of framing the distinction.
If I'm taking the correct measure of your second question, I would answer by inverting things. Namely, I think it's the case, historically and sociologically, that those who embrace the 'modern-scientific worldview' tend to favor (or at least are not averse to) some kind of economic 'planning' by the State. So -- to play even faster and looser with terms and argumentation -- there likely are some who favor a 'free market' that, in some sense, are 'anti-science'.
I wasn't thinking of an a priori connection between Rubio's position on the age of the world and a free market economy. Indeed, this would be far too fast and loose for my taste. At the same time, the suggestion that "there likely are some who favor a 'free market' that, in some sense, are 'anti-science'" is almost a statistical necessity--and in this sense seems meaningless. I was viewing the content/form analogy as a way of distinguishing and then relating the two notions of economy. Nye's seems to have to do (as you've rightly pointed out) with the wares we produce for trade and/or consumption; Rubio's with how we assign value to those wares. But without a marketable product, there's little point in discussing the best method for assigning value (except as a purely theoretical discipline). So, Rubio can indeed have that argument if he'd like, but it makes me wonder if that would not be a fiddling-while-Rome-burns sort of situation.
Tim,
ReplyDeleteI think this 'Rubio incident' evinces a lack of charitable interpretation.
It's tiresome to have to make such preliminary qualifications, but I don't have any fondness for Rubio, nor do I dispute what 'Science' currently postulates for the age of the World.
Anyhow, we seem to have here 2 different senses of "The Economy." Nye's seems to be something like "the aggregate of wares which are produced and offered to market (and the techniques for manufacturing them)," notably 'gadgets' which obviously exemplify modern technologies. Rubio is bit harder to pin down, but he seems to be alluding to "The Economy" in terms of the market matrix, sc., the system of buying and selling itself which we denote as the 'free market." Of course an entire 'ideology' is revealed when this notion is unpacked; e.g., it is alleged that this system primarily requires the freeing of entrepreneurial energies (with, consequently, little management or interference from the State).
So, Nye's "economy" accents the overtly scientific-technological character of much of what we buy and sell, and Rubio's would underscore the institutional underpinnings which allow and encourage economic dynamism. In other words, their respective emphases flow out of deeper 'visions' of what is ultimately characteristic and determinative of -- what is essential about -- our economy.
I take it that it's uncontroversial that, whatever other shortcomings it evinces, Rubio's refusal to recite the current scientific catechism doesn't obviously impair his ability to dispute over 'the economy' as he apparently is using the term.
Paul,
DeleteThat's a really good distinction, thanks. Do you think the two notions of economy are related--perhaps as content and form? If so, do you think there is a connection between the rejection of science and the economy in Rubio's sense (even if tenuous)?
Tim,
DeleteGood thought -- form/content strikes me as a useful way of framing the distinction.
If I'm taking the correct measure of your second question, I would answer by inverting things. Namely, I think it's the case, historically and sociologically, that those who embrace the 'modern-scientific worldview' tend to favor (or at least are not averse to) some kind of economic 'planning' by the State. So -- to play even faster and looser with terms and argumentation -- there likely are some who favor a 'free market' that, in some sense, are 'anti-science'.
Dear Paul,
ReplyDeleteI wasn't thinking of an a priori connection between Rubio's position on the age of the world and a free market economy. Indeed, this would be far too fast and loose for my taste. At the same time, the suggestion that "there likely are some who favor a 'free market' that, in some sense, are 'anti-science'" is almost a statistical necessity--and in this sense seems meaningless. I was viewing the content/form analogy as a way of distinguishing and then relating the two notions of economy. Nye's seems to have to do (as you've rightly pointed out) with the wares we produce for trade and/or consumption; Rubio's with how we assign value to those wares. But without a marketable product, there's little point in discussing the best method for assigning value (except as a purely theoretical discipline). So, Rubio can indeed have that argument if he'd like, but it makes me wonder if that would not be a fiddling-while-Rome-burns sort of situation.