Why isn't the Truth more Mainstream?

Miscellaneous General
1

Following the Why isn’t Austrian School of Economics more mainstream? thread it got me thinking why are the most widely held doctrines fly in the face of reality: from economics, to climate change and as far as literary theory the accepted “truth” is as far from itself as east is from west.

The question is why? All of you who have read Hayek may blame the intellectuals which of course are a major factor though isn’t fundamental. I believe the two major factors are the formal education system and societal nihilism.

The current formal education system has no compass. Nobody knows what its purpose is. Is it to cultivate virtue? Is it to aid the examined life? We have the deafening sound of silence (I’m going through a Simon and Garfunkel phase). To hear this, just listen to political debates and inane public contributions. All it boils down to is we can do it better than the other party and the public saying the old days never aged. What one means by better is never discussed. Now you may argue that may be what the comprehensive (public for you over the pond) schools are like but in the hallowed cloisters of the university truth seeking is the sole quest. In fact universities are some of the most debauched institutions around. Both in my economics degree and my brother’s Theoretical Physics masters the sole aim was to churn you through the mill to receive a piece of paper. And this was at a true red brick university. But why? The unuttered, though sometimes occasionally, ad hoc justification is the Marxian idea that education is to develop men for industry: otherwise known as to get a job.

The state funding of the educational institutions fosters this mentality. The incentive for the schools is to get as many children through their books as possible to learn and regurgitate the state’s curriculum since that’s what they call the piper’s successful “knowledge economy” tune; in fact it’s one of the few tune’s he can call with such a centralised system and an incredibly qualitative area. Attempting cultivation of the person for the examined life is neither possible nor desirable as it would lead to the State’s delegitimisation; similar problems exist with the universities. Further the free at the point of incarceration nature of schools, parents are encouraged to abandon their natural nurture and care of their children and leave it to the professionals. With children abandoned to the state their minds are rendered indolent; the exception being the children of the ruling class who enrol in elite private academies.

In the more academic environment it encourages scientism of the highest order since nothing else will get that grant money. The state can only be a pragmatic institution otherwise it would have died a death long ago. The success in the 19th/20th advances in the empirical sciences all disciplines attempted to ape this by making their studies “scientific” one because it was fashionable but also since it produces “results” which is the only thing the state deals in. This led to emasculation of the social sciences and the arts. Why fund some one to read when you can do on experiment which produces numbers?! It also harmed the hard sciences as well: not once was the nature or appropriate method discussed in the Theoretical Physics masters. All they were concerned with was throwing maths at everything so they could test it irrespective of whether the maths actually makes any sense in reality.

This is not to say that in a purely private formal educational system that pragmatism would be the name of the game however I think it would be tempered. With the hard sciences research would either be directed towards developing useful technologies which could involve arbitrary reasoning or could follow the Baconian idea that technological advancement comes as an offshoot of pure science. The current statist system and the prevailing scientism conflate the two resulting in today’s system.

The more fundamental reason though is the prevailing societal view is nihilistic. There is no truth, no laws and no God. We came from nothing and are going to nothing (I’m not saying no God implies nihilism but you can see why most nihilists are atheists since if there’s an overarching designer it would mean presence rather than absence) A slightly more nuanced view is that truth could exist but it is unknowable however it makes little practical difference. Consequently society as a whole is underpinned by the intensity over profundity principle (Don’t think I’m so profound as to come up with that- I stole it from this clever chap’s lecture- The Self at the End of the 20th Century Part 3 ) Since there is no telos to discover the only way to feel truly alive is through intense physical experience. Now since the same level of thrill has diminishing returns the incentive is to turn things up to 11.

This can be seen in many elements in modern society. The increase in drug use and self harming are most immediate examples of this phenomenon. A less direct effect but nonetheless evident is the representation of acts of violence and sex in the arts; they are realised to create an intense experience rather than left to the imagination. The area with which I’m most familiar in this regard is film. Take the film The Shawshank Redemption and compare the level of graphic violence with say No Country for Old Men: both were rated 15 in the UK (second only to an 18) yet the latter is light years ahead in the violence stakes. If No Country had have been made when Shawshank had been, 15 years or so ago, it certainly would have received 18 certificate. No Country may be actually making point with the violence and may not be entirely artless but it shows the intensity progression. Maybe the best (sic) example of brainless violence are the so called “torture porn” genre exemplified by the Saw (the 1st could be an exception) and Hostel franchise which are just sadistic because they can- the violence is the entertainment.

Interestingly one of the most nihilistic blockbusters of modern times, the Dark Knight actually eschewed realisation in favour of imagination and was far more affecting for it, although the main reason was probably so they could do the deal with Burger King. For an in depth review of the Dark Knight see here but the main points are man is depraved and “Chance is the only reality in this cruel world. Unprejudiced. Unbiased. Fair.” Two Face.

The increase in graphic nudity and sex for pure titillation value is also pervasive in films. For no logical reason scenes are shot in pole dancing clubs or female “characters” will walk across their bedroom topless. In the Lars von Trier film Antichrist the actors actually have sex on screen to further the realisation process. Further most of life is becoming fetishised, even food- the Marks and Spencer food adverts are more erotic than Channel 5’s straight to video sleazefests. This is unsurprising when sex is viewed purely in materialistic terms and is no different than slugs copulating; since there is only the hormonal kick, why not get it anywhere, anytime?

Now I’m not decrying the use of nudity/sex and violence on screen but just how and why it is used. The sex scene in Nicholas Roag’s Don’t Look Now is graphic but is an incredibly intimate and tasteful scene. Further Shakespeare and the Bible have quite a bit of it in too. Obviously there has always been a tendency to put the intense before the profound: Aristotle said that man is most often closer to the beasts than the spirit. And yes we don’t have Gladiators yet. The point stands however we are certainly heading further into the pit of intensity and the prevailing worldview encourages it.

In conclusion the formal education system isn’t set up to search for the truth but merely in producing compliant AI (Artificial Ignorance); and society thinks only sexy needles “exist”.

2

Well…I fear more the bringer of truth than standing armies at my door step.

If you really have an Eco degree…you already have 50% of your question answered.

You shine the most when your enemy is defeated. That being said…we have seen in this recession how mainstream Keynesian thought have failed.

That’s why people have turned to guys like Friedman, Hayek …among others…for answers and guidance.

As of AE itself…I dont think it will gain more acceptance.

Have you seen any “big” recognition for AE since fall 2007 (as a school of thought)??? (Aside Ron Paul and few others).

Hope this helps.

3

By who?

Can I get a proper indicator from you, (alexa stats etc.) as to what you are using as your benchmark.

I think it will, and I also think you’re going to end up eating your own words.

4

Are you faulty Chinese proverb machine?

Anyway why do you fear the bringer of truth? Do you dislike the concept of truth?

5

I do not oppose AE in anyway. I actually hope it gains more acceptance. AE is a great school of economics and I hope it makes it every eco textbook.

Unfortunately, AE is not only about economics, it is a philosophy all of its own. Such philosophy wont find acceptance and clouds all great success in economics.

Thats why I only hear people talking about Hayek, Friedman and other libertarian anti govt-fed economists. I am sorry but no one knows AE.

6

I tend to agree with the Hoppeian analysis that classical Western (european) civilisation committed suicide on the fields of France during the 1914-1918 period. The social, economic and cultural destruction of the old order led to the frenzied adoption of the democratic ideologies of the nazis, the bolsheviks, the fabians (etc) which were guided by anyone from nilhists to populists.

The main reasons for their success? Appeal to the lowest common denominator and whip people into a constant emotional state; suppress critical thought.

I think we have to accept that the Austrian School will appeal to a limited number of people and probably won’t be adopted overnight by the masses. Sadly a majority of them are much more emotionally and financially invested in how much they can rob Peter to pay Paul – particularly those in British housing estates (ghettos). The middle-classes are scared little lambs who are programmed to feel guilt for existing, do as they are told, and in Britain’s case, they all work in Labour’s soviet bureaucracies anyway, now.

The traditional moral guardians, the establishment, are too busy living hedonistic and self-destructive lifestyles from the family trust fund since they have no role or purpose in society anymore.

People are fickle and will chop and chance their attitudes; how many can really define what free-market means? Does it mean total freedom or simply partial freedom? Have they read Friedman’s works, or Hayek’s, cover to cover? The moment the economic outlook looks grim, are they going to clamour for less oversight… or more? That’s the fundamental challenge Austrian adherents face, I believe.

How can you convince someone so heavily committed to the welfare/populist mentality to adopt a new attitude? (What about the ones who admit you are right, but nonetheless maintain their allegiance to flawed logic?)

7

very insightful indeed. [Y]

8

The dislike of truth comment could have been better phrased however it seems that you do since it leads to:

Guilt by association.

Is that a personal perspective too or are you claiming objectivity with the statement?

9

So what is truth my friend??

10

People from a young age build mental constructs of the world around them. Anything the deviates, too far, from this mental picture becomes difficult to accept or to incorporate into their understanding of the world. The truth is difficult in any aspect of our world.

The “truth” is even difficult in the sciences. For instance, I sometimes help molecular biologist and biochemist in solving unknown structures of molecules they study. Now these scientists have a pretty good understanding on how molecules behave at a macro scale but hardly any understanding of molecular or sub atomic physics. When they step into our x-ray laboratory and our team uses complicated mathematical techniques and physics to recreate actual images of the molecule under study, they are amazed and perplexed by these techniques. They are always curious and always in awe because we can attain further information, based on these images, using quantum mechanics on how the molecule will behave in vitro.

While these biologists accept our data, they never accept the science behind it because they won’t accept the probabilistic and wave nature of the subatomic world. The quantum world is far too complicated and bizarre for them to accept. Yet they know our data is accurate and correct in determining scientific parameters.

While new to economics, it’s been easy for me to understand why the Austrian School is the correct path to understand this complicated machine called the economy. It seems to be the only school that asserts its own limitations and is able to predict soundly.

11

Excellent Post. I hold all, if not, nearly all of those same sentiments.

And as to truth. Couldn’t have framed it better myself. [:)]

Free-thinking, ie. thinking for oneself, and all the encouragement that goes with it from the public school system and the gov’t intervention in and of itself - is the herd’s worst nightmare.

I know all about the public schools. I get great insights almost daily. The biggest program they seem to have is ‘critical thinking’. That’s mainly what all the teachers meetings consist of for at least three years now. Over and over again, critical thinking this and that. The big shot that wrote a book gets invited to the school to give a lecture to the teachers (already no signs of critical thinking, ie. lecture). The lecturer repeats over and over how important critical thinking is, and great it is for the student, etc… Then when asked what could the teachers do to improve critical thinking - silence. Never an answer. Never. One big non-creative, lecture by a lecturer who can’t even get the teachers to involve themselves during the meeting in any critical thinking hypocritically turns around and says you got to get the students critically thinking. It’s a joke. The meetings NEVER offer anything of value that will be implemented in the classroom. It’s dead air and wasted time. But the guy wrote a book about how important critical thinking is, so…[sarcastic].

The question by the teachers is valid. How? In the face of all the regulations and prerequisite knowledge that needs to be spoon fed to the students because of the growing number of mandatory exams in order to pass high school (around here the mandatory tests by the state are up to 6 or 8 before graduation can be accepted). If the schools don’t meet the grading requirements then the gov’t takes over the school and one consequence of that is the child is thereby considered owned by the gov’t when it comes to anything that is considered proper to the school such as a lawsuit involving a school that become owned by the state, I believe West Virginia. The mother didn’t want the child to take the swine flu shot being given at the school. Mother lost because the court ruled the mother can’t sue herself, ie. the state. Her daughter had to get the swine flu shot. That’s all thanks to Bush’s ‘No Child Left Behind’ that I don’t know of one teacher that likes such a regulation. It only hurts the students. It doesn’t benefit them one bit due to various reasons.

The classroom is a meat machine. No creativity. No examined life. No thought about truth. I am generalizing because there are far and few in between teachers that are able to sneak that into the classroom still. But it is an exhausting effort as so much piles up on the teachers desk that has nothing to do with the individual students in the classroom that the extra mile anymore might be detrimental to the health of the teacher (added stress conditions).

Good post!

12

I believe you are right. As I said…psychology is a big factor in the quest for “truth”. But truth is a state of personal awareness. Like being in love. I guess.

However, can you take a little of your time and explain me how AE asserts its own limitations and possibly imperfections??

13

It would seem self evident that you already know the answer since you have consistently pre-supposed it with your arguments.

Back to my OP has anyone got any thoughts on the current education system and its influence or am I completely off base?

14

Fear, stupidity, and lack of education.

End thread.

15

Your avoidance is not justified.

16

quit derailing the thread. start your own if your so interested in your topic

17

AE is limited because it doesn’t try to incorporate equations to mimic the economy. Personally, that’s its greatest strength. The study of trying to mimic the economy falls under the mathematics of schoastic dynamics (non linear differential equations to be exact). This is what many economist attempt to do. I’ve worked enough with this mathematics in chemistry/physics to comprehend that it’s not possible. The mathematics itself is the limiting factor because it gives a large number of answers (almost an endless number if your system is large enough). You can’t predict chaotic systems because they are chaotic. You can’t create an equation that will foretell how a human will behave.

Any good scientist realizes the limitations of science. Science is an attempt to understand, it doesn’t have all the answers. However it strives to better understand so it can make better predictions. You can say the same for AE. It limits itself to the realm of what is known and doesn’t try to go beyond its scope like many other schools of economics. It can predict trends but can’t say exactly when they will happen.

18

I agree with you.Specially this:

“Science is an attempt to understand, it doesn’t have all the answers”

19

Because the left conquered the world, and because the left is wrong.

20

By what criterion?