Empiricism is overrated

Ross Douthat is right:"ideological preconceptions always matter." So much so that intellectually honesty requires first of all that we acknowledge our prejudices, not that we pretend to be "empiricists." For instance, it is always interesting to see a Nobel prize from Princeton, and a distinguished scholar from Harvard reach exactly opposite conclusions from the same empirical data.

Comments

[David Roberts]

This is just so fascinating. These two economists are considered experts in their field and rightly so. But the very fact that their ideology is what determines not only their view, but their solution, makes you wonder how much our preconceptions obscure our personal views.

[Siger of Brabant]

Empicirism doesn't mean that the same finite set of empirical observations will always distinguish between any two competing hypotheses, so the dispute between these two economists doesn't do anyting to impugn empiricism. It is often the case that the same set of empirical observations don't distinguish between two rival hypotheses. Take Wittgenstein's example: is this a photograph of a man walking forwards uphill or a man walking backwards downhill? The observable evidence, possibly, doesn't allow one to rule out one or the other hypothesis. However, what empirical science is committed to is that it is possible to find additional evidence that will distinguish between the two hypotheses if this is empirical science. This is distinct from the case of a non-empirical field like theology where all the available objective evidence is given but there are many theological disputes that remain between the different strands of Christianity, let alone among the other religions.

[Crossroads Cultural Center]

As a working scientists I promise you, the natural sciences are HUGELY affected by the researchers' preconceptions, all lofty commitments notwithstanding.