Claude Hillinger: Science and Ideology in Economic, Political, and Social Thought

1. INTRODUCTION This paper has two sources: One is my own research in three broad areas: business cycles, economic measurement and social choice. In all of these fields I attempted to apply the basic precepts of the scientific method as it is understood in the natural sciences. I found that my effort at using natural science methods in economics was met with little understanding and often considerable hostility. I found economics to be driven less by common sense and empirical evidence, then by various ideologies that exhibited either a political or a methodological bias, or both. This brings me to the second source: Several books have appeared recently that describe in historical terms the ideological forces that have shaped either the direct areas in which I worked, or a broader background. These books taught me that the ideological forces in the social sciences are even stronger than I imagined on the basis of my own experiences. The scientific method is the antipode to ideology. I feel that the scientific work that I have done on specific, long standing and fundamental problems in economics and political science have given me additional insights into the destructive role of ideology beyond the history of thought orientation of the works I will be discussing. How serious is the problem of ideology? While the entire paper is an argument to the effect that it is very serious, I will try to give a preliminary answer in terms of an anecdote. A few years ago in a conversation with a prominent colleague, an economics professor at an outstanding American university, he told me that he was unable to have much concern about future generations, since these would be infinitely better off than we are. I hasten to add that this was a man whom I had experienced to be highly intelligent as well as considerate and helpful in his personal relationships. How could it be that a man, considered to be a scholar and scientist by himself as well as by society, would pronounce such a complete absurdity concerning an aspect of reality that is central to his own discipline? Depending on how one interprets this question, the answer is either simple, or complex. The simple answer is that this colleague was stating the implication of a standard model of economic growth. According to this class of models, the material output of an economy can grow …