Can't concentrate...must rant on the internet

Over at Bitch Ph.D there is a discussion of economic arguments for public support of children's well being. I have weighed in against the whole idea of economic arguments, and in the process said things like "economics is simply degenerate utilitarianism." This is a harsh generalization, and I can't help but think that someone is going to take me down for it. The thing is, I believe this harsh generalization, and several others, including "If economists could successfully distinguish reality from their models of reality, the whole enterprise would crumble."



So I'm supposed to be working now, but I can't, because I'm wondering if I could really defend these claims. Part of the concern stems from the audacity of attacking a whole discipline. In some ways I am like the anti-evolutionists PZ Meyers bitches about, or the religiously minded opponent of relativity theory recently refuted by Sean Carroll. Those folks never understand the science they are critiquing, leading them to endlessly repeat arguments long ago refuted and ignore mountains of empirical data.

Still, you can’t adopt a general rule like “never complain about a science so established it has its own department in the university.” After all, we would be living in a unique moment in history if every single intellectual enterprise was on the right track. Someone out there has to be counting the angels on the head of a pin, or trying to measure the density of the luminiferous ether. I think it is the economists.

Ok, I’m supposed to be working, so I can’t post a full critique of economic science. I’m certain someone else has done it better elsewhere anyway. Instead I’ll just mention one standard complaint, which will hopefully clear this set of ideas from my head, so I can actually work.

A standard complaint about economists is that they have an unrealistic picture of human nature. They are simultaneously far too pessimistic about human morality and far too optimistic about human rationality. I’ve yet to see a good rebuttal of this criticism, although perhaps I am missing the equivalent of the evolution FAQ that PZ frequently links to. Typically economists stick to defending their pessimistic assumptions about human morality, because they can paint people like me as Pollyannas. When people do reply to the problems with assuming people are ideally rational, they point to economists who assume things like asymmetric access to information.

The problem is that this model only fits very limited sections of human behavior—typically those that were influenced by economists in their formation. You can’t make sense of basic human activities like childrearing or blogging with these assumptions. Childrearing is based on emotions like care which are neither selfish nor rational. Blogging is rational, at least when I do it, but it is what Habermas calls communicative rationality, not economic rationality.

Fuck, at this point I need data. I should get me some of that. But really I should get to work.