Lehrman American Studies Center

Newman says that the goal of liberal education is the "philosophical habit of mind", which includes the ability to put each discipline (and its contributions) in their proper place and relation to other disciplines. So a properly educated person knows how to value (and when to question) the conclusions of philosophy, politics, physics, etc.

How would a student go about determining the importance of a discipline, say, economics, in the circle of knowledge? We can infer from Newman that discipline A's influence on discipline B depends on whether other A is to contribute to B because 1) the field of A overlaps with that of B; 2) the area of overlap is important for B; and 3) A is mature enough to have uncovered enough important truths about B's field, from their point of view, which we would not have known from our own vantage point.

Conversely, if A is missing, B is likely to encroach on other A's field, causing B to say silly things and fall into error. This temptation is larger if the greater the importance of the field of the missing discipline, the wider its coverage (which increases the likelihood of overlap), and the more solid A's hold on the truths of its discipline are (if A is not very mature, who's to say B's interloping will be in error more often than A's?).

How do we judge the "importance of the field?" I suggest there are two ways to go about it. One is to look at the chain of being: God, Man, Nature. Thus a discipline that studies man in himself (say, psychology) and as he relates to other men (say, sociology) will be higher than a discipline that studies man in relation to nature (say, nutrition), but lower than a discipline that studies man in relation to God (say, ascetical theology). Another categorization is to consider how much the science studies permanent things (metaphysics) versus changeable things (physics), which correlates closely with how much it relies on deduction and reflection versus empirical observation.

The definition of economics is a matter of debate. Perhaps it is not too controversial to say that Economics focuses on human action in a particular sphere (largely, the effect of freedom of choice in the pursuit and disposition of material goods and services). Its relation to material objects is rather incidental, however—it is more about individual tastes and preferences, individual choices, and the interaction of the individual with his social environment. Economics uses "an idiosyncratic mixture of a priori theorizing and data-based empiricism, a commitment to apply the scientific method despite the inability to carry out replicable or even controlled experiments, a closeness to certain contentious political issues”" (B. Friedman, Passion and Craft, p. 82).

In principle—and in the actual practice of economists—economics might cover any area of life where trade-offs exist, although the method is better suited to wealth-acquisition and -disposition, at the individual or aggregate level. Because it uses methods borrowed from the physical sciences to study changeable and contingent human behavior, economics has not, as Frank Hahn (Eminent Economists, p. 163) says, been able to get propositions to be generally accepted as verified or falsified by evidence. Vast and fundamental gaps exist in our understanding of theory and empirical knowledge; our assumptions are often of low descriptive merit and little predictive success. However, within bounds of modesty and professional humility (which we do not often display), economists are certainly able to explain a great part (yes, yes, not all) of its own field, better than any other discipline.

Then, how would a liberally-educated student value economics? He would put it below theology but above physics in terms of its field. Because of its mixed method and the contingent character of its object of study, he would be relatively skeptical of the non-economic excursions of economics, more so the farther afield the economic method goes. And yet the liberally-educated theology major would refuse to pronounce on social morality without asking her economics-major buddy (sadly, she often goes and pronounces anyway). The liberally-educated physicist would refuse to apply his method to economic phenomena without reading deeply into sociology, history, and psychology (sadly, he often applies away). And the liberally-educated citizen would be horrified to be described thus:

What is more common than the sight of grown men, talking on political or moral or religious subjects, in that off-hand, idle way, which we signify by the word unreal? "That they simply do not know what they are talking about?" is the spontaneous silent remark of any man of sense who hears them. Hence such persons … have no difficulties in the most difficult subjects. [Such half-formed and superficial intellects love to expound on] random theories and imposing sophistries and dashing paradoxes, … full of "views" … on all matters of the day … at a moment's notice. (Newman, Idea of a University, XLIII, XLV)

Sadly, one knows too many of these insta-economists.

Tags: Colleges and Universities, Economics, The Liberal Arts