A left-winger goes to Chicago

Tyler Cowen linked to an article discussing an interesting study of how philosophical views correlate with other traits. This caught my eye:

Additionally, they found that being more politically right-leaning was associated with several philosophical views, such as theism, free will libertarianism, nonphysicalist views in philosophy of mind, and the correspondence theory of truth.

I reject all four of those views, which I guess makes me a left-winger in a philosophical sense. So why am I perceived as being on the right?

Perhaps it was my University of Chicago education, which taught me that regulations aimed at helping consumers and workers almost always make them worse off, that imports are good for the economy, that bubbles don’t exist, that there is no useful trade-off between inflation and unemployment, that consumption taxes are more progressive than investment income taxes, and lots of other counterintuitive stuff.

My Chicago education had no impact on my basic philosophical views, but did impact my views on causal relationships.

And it left me in a very lonely spot. But I am perfectly content being out on the fringe.


Tags:

 
 
 

19 Responses to “A left-winger goes to Chicago”

  1. Gravatar of Matthias Matthias
    11. May 2021 at 16:16

    The other ‘libertarianism’ makes an entry at the blog.

  2. Gravatar of D.O. D.O.
    11. May 2021 at 16:25

    I understand the first 3, but I am supprised that you don’t subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth or one of its variants.

  3. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    11. May 2021 at 16:43

    D.O. I like Rorty’s theory of truth.

  4. Gravatar of Lizard Man Lizard Man
    11. May 2021 at 17:20

    Bubbles do exist; it is called fraud.

  5. Gravatar of Philo Philo
    11. May 2021 at 17:54

    Your graduate education was much more successful–you better absorbed what was being taught (besides, as it seems to me, developing it further)–than is usually the case.

  6. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    11. May 2021 at 21:16

    Are you a deterministic libertarian? And, if so, what does that mean? That you are at liberty to do what you are compelled to do?

  7. Gravatar of J.V. Dubois J.V. Dubois
    12. May 2021 at 02:39

    @Scott Sumner: Is what follows a rough description of what you take for Rorty’s view of truth?

    “He [Rorty] says that the correspondence theory of truth does not work and that we should dump the notion of correspondence itself. Instead of the ‘yes/no’ of correspondence, Rorty advocates a pragmatic and holistic view of truth as that which is most convenient for a society. He says that the idea that the ‘World’ (or the ‘Facts’ or ‘Reality’, etc.) validates our true statements is a nonsense, because there is no way that we can get outside language to encounter the thing-in-itself. Statements are supported by other statements. Even ostensive definition is an act within a language game. There is no vantage point outside language from which we can observe the match between language and the ‘World’.”

    If that is the case paint me surprised to hear that you subscribe to the postmodern view on truth. While I respect that postmodern view to some extent I think there is a fundamental mismatch in meaning of words including the definition of words “truth” and “reality” (I am fully aware of the paradox and irony here, believe me). If you are interested, a nice exploration of the topic can be read here: https://everythingstudies.com/2017/03/06/science-the-constructionists-and-reality/

  8. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    12. May 2021 at 08:29

    Carl, You asked:

    “That you are at liberty to do what you are compelled to do?”

    Yes.

    Keep in mind that a free person is compelled to do different (and usually better) things than an unfree person.

    JV. Rorty is making some very subtle points, which are not easy to grasp at first. One way of looking at his views is to think about these three claims:

    1. “X is true.”

    2. “I believe X is true.”

    3. “I believe X is true, and it really is true.”

    Rorty would say there is no meaningful distinction between these three claims. We use the term “true” for things we believe with a high level of confidence. When we say something is true, we are saying that we regard it as true, nothing more. The actual importance of Rorty’s ideas show up in the field of epistemology. He is skeptical of any single approach for ascertaining the truth (Popper, etc.), and instead is a pragmatist. We accept scientific models because they are useful, they allow us to predict nature, manipulate nature, etc.

    There is nothing weird about his ideas, properly understood.

  9. Gravatar of J.V. Dubois J.V. Dubois
    12. May 2021 at 20:39

    @Scott Sumner

    It is an interesting point by Rorty – which was also elaborated by Tarski. Most philosophers do not question the subjectivity of all human experience, famously as Descartes.

    I also do not understand how Rorty and Popper are different in this regard. Popper does not claim that humans have direct access to reality. All scientific knowledge is there only with certain level of confidence and all theories are only provisional until they are falsified and replaced. For correspondence theory of truth to be useful we do not have to have access to 100% Truth it is enough if we have tools to improve our confidence. But in order to be capable of improvement we need to have a model of truth to which we aspire in principle.

    It cannot be all just language games and self-contained postmodern reference. To shorten everything: My subjective belief drives my hypothesis. Then I run experiment. Even though the experimental results are captured my subjective experience there seems to be something that drives them – the best way to call that thing is Reality. It is that which seems to be there even if I stop believing in it. I think this “belief – experiment – reality” correspondence is the best epistemological tool we have. I do not see how postmodern idea of truth is in any way better or how it improves or builds on it.

  10. Gravatar of Joe Joe
    13. May 2021 at 06:11

    Happy to join you on this Island…

  11. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    13. May 2021 at 09:56

    J.V. Experiments work fine in some contexts, not in others. That’s Rorty’s point. (They weren’t much help to me when I studied the Great Depression. Or if I were to study ethics.) There’s a huge debate over epistemology that has been raging for 2500 years, with no generally agreed upon conclusions being reached. Rorty says that that debate is a waste of time. Just get on with the task of looking for useful facts, or useful models of the world.

    I have no idea what you mean by postmodern word games.

  12. Gravatar of rinat rinat
    14. May 2021 at 04:00

    “Additionally, they found that being more politically right-leaning was associated with several philosophical views, such as theism, free will libertarianism, nonphysicalist views in philosophy of mind, and the correspondence theory of truth.”

    First, if you blindly accept the view that something can come from nothing, without any evidence to support that view, then you are a theist! Your new religion is now string theory, or some other concoction, based on “faith” and ‘hope’.

    Secondly, neuroscientists have no clue what consciousness is. There is no neuroscientist who can prove physicalism.

    And lastly, libertarianism is simply – at it’s core – a belief in universality. Whether you are a libertarian socialist, or a libertarian that advocates for free markets, you believe in individual rights.

    Despite Sumner’s claim of being libertarian, he is clearly NOT. If he was, he wouldn’t be advocating for, and supporting, BLM Marxist thugs, who want to destroy individuality in favor of a centralized apparatus. He wouldn’t be supporting Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, two socialists, who want an authoritarian central state. He wouldn’t be supporting the banning of weapons, a constitutional right, designed to protect the individual (i.e., the inalienable) from a corrupt and tyrannical central government.

  13. Gravatar of MichaelM MichaelM
    15. May 2021 at 22:55

    J.V.:

    “It cannot be all just language games and self-contained postmodern reference.”

    Not the least because ‘it is all just language games’ is a part of a language game.

    The problem with all relativistic theories of truth, including linguistic ones, is that they cannot protect themselves from their own denial of the truth of other theories of truth. They are self-referentially inconsistent.

  14. Gravatar of J.V. Dubois J.V. Dubois
    20. May 2021 at 03:35

    @Scott Sumner: “I have no idea what you mean by postmodern word games”

    As per my previous post that desribes Rorty’s stance on truth:

    “Rorty advocates a pragmatic and holistic view of truth as that which is most convenient for a society. He says that the idea that the ‘World’ (or the ‘Facts’ or ‘Reality’, etc.) validates our true statements is a nonsense, because there is no way that we can get outside language to encounter the thing-in-itself.”

    So truth is embeded in social world, it is about social convenience. The truth is that which is deemed as true by people. There is not correspondence to reality, it is about language and the process of which social group decides on what is true.

    And again, I am surprised here. I assumed that for instance if you say that Market Monetarism is best way to think about macroeconomics means that you observed reality (various stats about prices and economic output etc.) and then decided that this theory is closer to “Truth” in the sense of correspondence to how people behave in reality. That is why MM is superior to some other theories (e.g. MMT) – it is not because it is convenient to group of powerful economists who decide on these things.

    Again, I do not see how Rorty’s stance on epistemology improves on anything. As said before – Popper never said that having 100% confidence is possible. All scientific theories are only conditional. Or to use an example, let’s say stating that “Earth is of the shape of a ball” is not exactly precise. Earth is geoid on one scale and it even has features like mountains or trenches etc. But the statement that Earth is a ball has closer correspondence to reality than saying that the shape of Earth is flat.

  15. Gravatar of J. V. Dubous J. V. Dubous
    20. May 2021 at 03:43

    @MichaelM:

    Exactly. If I have to simplify my stance on epistemology it is as follows. Everything is subjective – we do not have direct access to reality, we experience the world via our senses and our subjective experience. However it is undeniable that there is something that shapes our FUTURE subjective experience. Just wishing something does not make it happen in the future. So the model is as follows:

    My beliefs (possibly expressed linguistically) drive my experimental hypothesis

    Reality is that which drives my experimental results – which I view through future subjective experience.

    So even if I do not have direct access to Reality it seems undeniable that there is something driving my subjective experience. Reality is a useful component of my model of my subjective experience. The degree in which my hypothesis corresponds to this notion of reality makes it more or less “True”.

    Now of course this may be very tricky in a social world. Somebody living in Stalin’s soviet Russia could not say that Stalin is wrong, because he would be executed. But one can describe this situation in the correspondence theory of truth. It is true that Stalin is wrong (e.g. about agricultural reform). But it is also true that if I speak up I will get executed. Both of these statements are true in the correspondence model of Truth. One does not have to invent some new model where the first statement is Wrong because it is socially not convenient for me.

  16. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    20. May 2021 at 08:10

    JV, You said:

    “it is not because it is convenient to group of powerful economists who decide on these things.”

    With all due respect, I think you are in way over your head. This mischaracterizes Rorty’s view. There is a distinction between statements that our society regards as true, and claims that we ourselves regard as true. Thus Rorty or I might say “Most experts believe X, but I believe that X is false and instead Y is true.”

    I’d encourage you to read one of Rorty’s books, not just a paragraph or two.

    The economic models that I prefer are those that provide a coherent and useful account of the facts that I observe. Perhaps they also correspond in some way to “reality” but of course I have no way of knowing that. Why go beyond what we know?

  17. Gravatar of J.V. Dubous J.V. Dubous
    20. May 2021 at 16:21

    @Scott Sumner

    First, I used “Standford Philosophy Encyclopedia” which is a resource tasked to distill thought of various philosophers. So I am sorry if I had to go to one of the sources to see what your philosophical stance is.

    But again, please explain how for example Rorty informed you with Market Monetarism. MM is one of the most prominent thoughts you put forward. And Rorty epistemiology is the thing you like. So please, can you explain how Rorty informed one of the most important insight of your life?

  18. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    20. May 2021 at 16:45

    JV, Many economists believe that scientific research means collecting a bunch of data and running statistical regressions.
    I have a much more eclectic view. You use all sorts of techniques; empirical data, historical narratives, theoretical models, history of thought, etc., to develop a coherent and persuasive account of what you are trying to explain. The methods I use in my book coming out in July (or my Great Depression book) are quite different from the approach used by 95% of economists. That reflects the views of Rorty on epistemology. I reject any one size fits all theory of knowledge, such as the idea that theories must be falsifiable to be useful.

  19. Gravatar of J.V. Dubois J.V. Dubois
    21. May 2021 at 05:49

    @Scott Sumner: ” I reject any one size fits all theory of knowledge, such as the idea that theories must be falsifiable to be useful.”

    I (and I guess Popper) agrees here. But then we are talking about empiricism. I will use an example here of the Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis here, who in 1846 was appalled by the deaths during childbirth and he run many experiments to improved that state. And he discovered that doctors washing hands significantly increases the chance of women to survive. He did not have a theory around that. There was no germ theory back then. Now his work was refuted by prominent scholars at the time and he suffered loss of reputation that led to his alcoholism and later to mental issues.

    Nevertheless one can reframe his experiments to Popperian argument. I have a hypothesis that something is wrong with childbirth deaths. Then I conduct experiments and see that washing hands is effective. I can state that because there is belief-reality (or hypothesis-experiment) connection there. It is not a full fledged theory of the world encompassing everything including unification of physical forces. But it is an increment of having a correspondence of beliefs with what actually happens in the world.

    So to restate, it does not matter if 95% of economists are against Market Monetarism. The way you go forward with your ideas is to prove that they are “useful” – in other words that they work out in reality. There is a correspondence of belief and reality that can be proven for instance if Central Banks adopt NGDP targeting. I really do not see how Rorty is in any way useful here.

    Maybe you are mistaken here. Popper does not care how you came up with your hypothesis. Maybe you dream it up – like when Kekulé literally had a dream about how the benzene molecule looks like. What matters is if it actually works in REALITY.

Leave a Reply