Major Economic and Geographic Myths Commonly Found
in the Social Sciences
The term ‘myth’ is employed here for several reasons. First, ‘myth,’ as derived from the Greek word, mythos, can mean both a story and a legend, and additionally, it may mean a word or speech. Second, the term has been transformed to carry two quite distinct valances: one carrying a positive and the other a negative connotation. In its positive connotation, myth refers to life sustaining, spirit lifting legendary stories in which the hero or heroine performs an exemplary function, in the vein of Carl G. Jung (The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, 2nd Ed., 1968; and The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, 2nd Ed., 1968) and of Joseph Campbell (Myths to Live By, 1993; and The Masks of God: Creative Mythology, 1995). George Lucas recognized the significance of the positive connotation of the term, as he acknowledged his debt to Joseph Campbell’s works, especial The Hero with a Thousand Faces (1948). The negative connotation of myth, is that of an ‘untrue’ story, something not to taken seriously or believed in, either as an inner transforming reality, or as an explanation of external events, e.g., the ‘myth’ or ‘story’ or ‘legend’ of Gilgamish. Here, I choose to attach the negative connotation to the term, since much of what passes for fact in the world today is little more than popular expressions of individual opinions expressed by self-appointed experts. These ‘opinions’ have not be subjected to rigorous proof using Bacon’s ‘scientific method,’ but anecdotal data and ‘wishful thing.’ The appropriate response to such academic non-sense should be: “Show me the facts, just the facts; forget opinion and forget all appeals to academic authority. Daniel J. Boorstin in his classic work, The Discoverers: A History of Man’s Search to Know the World and Himself, observed that: “Galileo was an early crusader for the paradoxes of science against the tyranny of common sense.” (1983, 316) There is ONE truth, not many truths, in scientific inquiry and that ONE truth is determined by the use of the ‘scientific method’, not personal opinion. A given truth (the Ptolemaic-Christian or geocentric view of the universe – ‘the earth is the center of the universe’) may hold until it is replaced a truth that is more accurate, capable of explaining more or is a simpler explanation of some observable phenomena (the Copernican or heliocentric view of the universe – ‘the sun is the center of the universe’).
All too often critics of an opponent’s perspectives (‘environmental conditions’ or ‘human welfare’ are improving) will dismiss them deprecatingly as a ‘myths,’ without doing the ‘heavy-lifting’ of demonstrating the falsity of those views. It is far easier to use labels than it is to employ the ‘objective’ processes of what should have been learned in grade school, i.e., the ‘scientific method’ or the ‘Baconian Method’ (after Sir. Francis Bacon, 1561-1626). . A perfect example of such a non-scientific methodology is provided by Paul Ehrlich, a notorious entomologist who began his professional career chasing insects in the Arctic. Clearly, Dr. Ehrlich has the academic background and credentials to comment meaningfully on insects, their ecology and other aspects of their interactions with the environment and with man. But, does this background in entomology qualify him, no matter how well read he may be, to render ‘scientific judgments’ regarding human populations (the realm of ‘demography’), climate change (the domain of ‘climatologists’ and ‘quaternary geologists’), or resource depletion (the field of ‘resource economists’ and ‘economic geologists’)? His observations in these areas are little more than an ‘educated’ opinion, but an opinion, nonetheless! His opinions in these areas are no better and no worse than are yours or mine! Ehrlich’s vituperative comments and ad hominum attacks on his main academic critic and opponent, Julian L. Simon (a University of Chicago-trained economics PhD.) are a classic example of the ‘politician’ and subversion of the ‘scientific method’ in the pursuit of individual/or group agendas. The title of an article he published in 1981 says it all: “An Economist in Wonderland” and this seriously calls into question the ‘scientific objectivity’ of the so-called scholarly journal in which the article was published: Social Science Quarterly [vol. 62, no. 1 (March, 1981)] Here the entomologist declaims:
Simon is wrong about the economics of mineral resources …The trough-like pattern
long predicted for mineral resources prices has now shown up, as Cook (1976) points
out, for all industrial metals except lead and aluminum. This includes copper. …I and
my colleagues … jointly accept Simon’s astonishing offer [a bet on the ‘real’ market
prices of any five metals Ehrlich wanted to choose over the period 1980 and 1990]
before other greedy people jump in. (46, as quoted at: “Julian Simon’s Bet With
Paul Ehrlich,” www.overpopulation.com/faq/People/julian_simon.html; emphasis
added)
Imagine, this biologist pretends that he is able to correct an economist on the principles of economics – the ‘laws of supply and demand,’ resource allocation, production theory? One might ask, as the little old lady in the Wendy’s commercial of yore did – “Where’s the beef?” – “Where’s the proof?”
Strictly speaking, ‘falsification’ is the task of the Baconian ‘scientific method’ – since it is easier to prove a hypothesis to be incorrect, than it is to prove it correct – there is a basic asymmetry to any scientific proof, i.e., to prove some thing false requires the discovery of only ONE exception, while to prove something true requires an extremely large number of confirming instances, even then there is an infinitesimally small probability that it is incorrect. Bacon’s methodology involves obtaining data from the external world (Observation); measuring, sorting, and classifying the observations (Classification); analyzing of the results, looking for patterns or relationships in/among these data and the formulation of an hypothesis that explains those relationships (Formulation of Hypotheses); subjecting the ‘hypothesis’ (a product of external observation and inner interpretation given existing theoretical structures or ‘paradigms’) to validate or falsify it by testing (Experimentation); if the hypothesis provides a ‘best’ explanation for external [keeping Occam’s Razor in mind – ‘ the best explanation of an outcome or event is the simplest, using the fewest assumptions’; after William Occam, var. Ockham] observations, it becomes a Theory.
Unfortunately, the requirement to use the ‘scientific method’ to arrive at new ‘truths’ has been ignored in a most shameful and irresponsible manner, frequently resulting in what has come to be known as ‘junk science’. It must be noted explicitly that ‘junk science’ is becoming more and more common in both the physical and the social sciences, with the rise of ‘moral relativism’ and the claimed, but unsubstantiated, at least by the use of the ‘scientific method,’ nexus among population growth, resource depletion and environmental degradation. In this manner many accepted ‘truths’ that pervade contemporary society are little more than a new ‘faith’ or religion [from: L. religio – reverence for the gods, holiness]. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) as ‘Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’ identified ‘Liberation Theology’ formulated by the Brothers Boff, as well, as all forms of Marxism, as a ‘Christian Heresies’ – a belief-system based on faith and NOT science. Under such circumstances it will be necessary to explore first the nature and scope of the ‘scientific method’ a bit more rigorously.
The Scientific Method (or ‘Baconian Method’)
One source states that “The method of science involves three activities titled: observa-tion, hypothesis, and theory.” (‘The scientific method’ <the habit of truth>; available at: www.geowords.com/histbooknetscape/b10.htm). This source continues:
In cycling through these activities to add to knowledge, the method is iterative and
finds patterns. The goal of science is understanding; not the making of a better mouse-
trap, which is technology.
As concise as these statements are, they leave much unaddressed. An alternative source, Ted Nordgren, outlines the steps or stages of the ‘scientific method,’ in the following manner:
… the category of knowledge we call science is defined in a very simple, though
precise, way that can be understood by anyone, whether they are involved in the
science or not. Here it must be acknowledged that there are many who attempt to
define science so broadly that it encompasses all forms of knowledge; however,
from the beginning of what is called ‘modern science,’ it was the Baconian
Scientific Method that guided all successful scientific endeavors. The Baconian
Scientific Method is given as follows and applies only to naturally recurring
processes that occur in the present. (www.thingsrevealed.net/sciences1.htm.)
Nordgren has outlined the ‘scientific method’:
The Scientific Method:
1. Observation: Direct or indirect in the present.
2. Problem: Question posed about natural process that is relevant
and testable in the present.
3. Hypothesis: An educated proposal for an explanation of naturally
recurring processes in the present and for the future.
4. Experiment: Direct test of hypothesis in the present which is possible
to repeat in the future.
5. Theory: Hypotheses about the present and future confirmed by experi-
ments in the present. Scientific theories are judged by their predictive
value for the future.
While Bacon’s methodology has unlocked many ‘truths’ about the universe, it has many opponents seeking to replace rigorous experimentation with a ‘faith-based’ revelations, including the ‘scientific socialism’ of Marxists, the ‘occultism’ of the Nazis, and the ‘creationism’ of the Evangelicals.
Abandonment or Betrayal of the Scientific Method [Apologies to
Paul Ehrlich]
The failure to adhere to the methodology of science (use the ‘scientific method’ and to substitute personal or public/political judgment and opinion for science) has led all too frequently to the abuse of science. This has been done in the name of ‘racial improvement’ (the ’eugenics’ movement, both in the United States and in Nazi Germany. And, more recently, ‘racial cleansing’ Jews and Gypsies in Hitler’s Germany and Jews and Kalmuks and Jews in Stalin’s Russia), the improvement of the ‘human condition’ (population control through a variety of means, including infanticide (a tried and true approach, even in ancient Athens), forced-sterilization, especially for those classified as ‘life unworthy of life’, or euthanasia), reducing ‘risks’ to life and health from a variety of sources (including pharmaceuticals, guns, cigarettes, cycling, or seatbelts) and ‘improving the ‘quality of the environment’ (over-fishing; over-hunting, dirty water, lead in paint, bad air, holes in the ozone layer, global warming, a coming ice age, exotic plants, reptiles and animals). All too often, emotions, wrought by evocative, but false verbal images, have replaced thoughtful analysis and the methods of science.
To begin with, it is necessary to acknowledge that at any given moment, say t0, the supply or availability of resources (also known to economists as factors of production) – land, labor, capital and entrepreneurship -- are fixed. Over a short time horizon, from a given moment, t0, out to a year or so, t1, some resources available to a firm [or income to a household], say semi-skilled workers for the assembly of a final consumer good (a toaster, or i-Pod) may become more plentiful as labor is trained, or as rising wages induce additional workers to enter the labor force. Supplies of other factors of production – capital, say a thermal (coal-fired) power station, may become available as demand for electricity increases [use of new appliances], electricity prices ($/kwh) rise sufficiently to cover the added costs of ‘stack scrubbers’, and/or society becomes more accepting of combusting such ‘dirty’ fuels as low-grade, sub-bituminous or lignite coals [perhaps because prices for electricity have increased]. It takes years (three to five to create thermal power plants – from design, to order, construction and installation), the ‘real’ delays – the lengthening of the gestation process – are associated with the ‘public sector’ (or the government) and its bureaucrats, via the ‘permitting process’, which may in some cases hearings have delayed the granting of a permit for a power plant by up to nine and ten years. Only after the permits have been granted, will a utility order construction on the power plant and it generators to begin. If this seems unreasonable, consider the amounts of money that are put ‘at risk’ pending the whims of the government regulators whom bear none of the costs of their actions in the form of less energy and higher prices than would have been the case absent the actions’ of the regulators. These costs, known as ‘alternative’ or ‘opportunity’ costs are externalized or imposed on the rest of society. [For an understanding of this point, see: Frank H. Knight. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. University of Chicago Press; also see: Robert L Formaini. “Frank H. Knight – Origins of the Chicago School of Economics,” Economic Insights, 7 (3); available at: www.federalreserve.org/research/ei/ei0203.html]
When the time horizon is extended even further, out to say a generation – about thirty (30) years – or so, the availability of factors of production are increased, as technologies change, resource requirements shift, and populations grow, and so it has been since the so-called Industrial Revolution, variously dated at 1760. The Industrial Revolution was precipitated and accompanied by an on-going ‘Scientific Revolution,’ both of which ushered in the modern era of mass production and mass consumption. The ‘Scientific Revolution’ was founded on a rejection of faith, appeals to the ‘authority figures’, and belief in Scholasticism’s and Aristotelianism’s capacity to provide an understanding of man, his nature and the physical environment, in favor of the use of the ‘Baconian’ or ‘Scientific Method’ which relies on observation, analysis, formulation and experimentation (testing). It was this incessant questioning of conveyed wisdom that has resulted in increasing resource productivity and improved welfare of humanity. This is at the heart of the ‘environmentalist’/’economist’ debate on population growth and resource depletion issues … the Reverend Thomas R. Malthus (1766 – 1834) and Paul Ehrlich favored the view that there was a ‘population explosion’ (following a ‘geometric’ progression: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64,…., n) – increasing demand for food and goods, which in turn necessitates the expansion of resource use (which, at best, follows and ‘arithmetic growth rate’: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,…., m) and the depletion of the world’s resource base. In contrast to the ‘environmentalist’ viewpoints (including ‘global cooling’/’global warming’; ‘mass starvation’; and ‘reduced standards of living’) are the research of Edward S. Deevey, Jr. (1914-1988), Scott Gordon, Julian Simon (1932-1998) and others in which the ‘limiting assumptions’ of the Malthus/Ehrlich ‘explosion models’ are exposed for the intellectual frauds that they are.