To Anyone Who Thinks Universities Don't Indoctrinate

[opus]

I have heard that before, that sociology has a more diverse set of tools. However, originally we were talking about political ideology, and I was stating that in my opinion economists tend to have a more diverse array of political views. You are also forgeting that there are economists who have very different tools of inquiry, such as the Austrian School of Economics.

"Praxaeology" is not empirical, and it is quite laughable that you are regarding this as a "tool of inquiry". As far as I'm concerned, not even their studies of "human action" would get published in the orthodox economic journals.

Also, political views != tools of inquiry, and if you're putting high value on the diversity of inquiry tools, I suggest you research other academic disciplines before putting your money on economics.

I disagree that this is irrelevant to our discussion. Making and testing predictions is what social science is all about. Economics has great predictive power, precisely because it tries to mathematical model real world phenomenon, and precisely because economists are well trained in statistics in order to test their predictions. This is why Gary Becker, Roland Fryer Jr, etc are able to study things that was referred to as sociology in the past (discrimination, families, education, peer effects, etc) because they have very useful tools of analysis.

Yes, quantitative data analysis is indeed useful but it is by no means exclusive property of the economics paradigm. Economists that study non-traditional subjects, and topics often related to sociology, are more likely than not employing statistical analysis that sociologists conventionally use commonly. For example, Freakonomics.

I'm not saying it's superior because of technical analysis. I do believe that social sciences will have to adapt in the future and become increasingly mathematical and statistical in order to rigourously and accurately test hyptheses and measure effects. Social sciences have to take advantage of both the philosophical ideas and views, as well as the mathematical and statistical tools.

Yes, but mathematical and statistical work done without knowledge of its philosophical assumptions ("axioms", if you would) is poor data and poor analysis. This is not the natural sciences, you cannot "skip" philosophy and somehow come up with "objective" facts that are forever real. Humans are complicated, and technical analysis will help, but it will not make philosophy irrelevant. In fact, it would only make it more relevant.

You also make it sound as though sociologists are completely unique from one another in their world view (which is not even what I've been claiming about economists). Don't you think if you ask a sociologist about the role discrimination and racism plays for minorities in the US, you'll get a fairly similar answer?

Sociologists are unique in that their studies are very broad, if you do not take into consideration their general "left-wing" orientation.

If sociologists could come up with a similar answer, we wouldn't have this issue of sociology questioning itself and sociologists would actually be able to agree on something for once. Of course, that has not happened and I don't see it happening for a while. Sociology is far from economics being centralized with a core set of tools, ideology, and beliefs. It is much more ambiguous and more inquisitive than deductive.

I didn't say it's the best way, rather that it is part of what it takes to have a social science and understand people. Essentially, I believe that quantitative analysis is necessary but not sufficient for a social science.

Yes, I agree with you. Quantitative analysis has a very important place in research. However, by itself alone, it is useless, like all other levels of analysis.

Exactly! Quantitative analysis cannot completely explain humans, however you may not be able to understand humans without it. As I alluded to above, it may be necessary but not sufficient. If humans could be totally understood through quantitative analysis alone, you probably wouldn't need social scientists because mathematicians would do it instead. Luckily for me, this is not the case, as I've stressed before that social science is about both philosophical ideas/theories and quantitative testing/analysis (as much as possible) of these ideas.

Indeed, however, as a general rule qualitative research is much more effective at "breaking into" a field. Quantitative data is much more effective at precision and predictability. In terms of data gathering, qualitative research also plays an important role in recording things that quantitative data misses - and variables that quantitative research often unknowingly miss.

I never said econ was value-free. And just for your info, I have taken a sociology class. I am by no means an expert, but I may not be as ignorant as you seem to think. I wish I would have taken more, just to understand their perspective more, but it's all good because I will just pick up sociology textbooks in the future.

That's good, here are some textbooks that might peak your interest:
Wikinomics
The Starfish and the Spider
The Tipping Point

 

[Economist]

"Praxaeology" is not empirical, and it is quite laughable that you are regarding this as a "tool of inquiry". As far as I'm concerned, not even their studies of "human action" would get published in the orthodox economic journals.

Don't quote me on this, but I think that modern Austrian economists are actually a bit different. I think a lot of them are highly trained in mathematics (economic theory) and statistics/empirical work (econometrics) because they have to take the 1st year core theory classes with everyone else in their PhD program, and they have to pass the prelim exams like everyone else. I was listening to a podcast about Austrian economics with a modern Austrian (Pete Boettke) and he was making it sound like modern Austrians utilize their knowledge of Econometrics in their research. However, I do agree that Austrian economists are probably unlikely to publish in many of the top/mainstream economic journals.

Yes, quantitative data analysis is indeed useful but it is by no means exclusive property of the economics paradigm. Economists that study non-traditional subjects, and topics often related to sociology, are more likely than not employing statistical analysis that sociologists conventionally use commonly. For example, Freakonomics.

Yes, quantitative analysis is not in anyway the be all end all of economics. If it were, economists probably wouldn't have a job, as statisticians could do everything that we can do. The main two things one needs to know to be an economist is the theory as well has how to do empirical work.

I'm not sure I agree with the Freakonomics comment though. Freakonomics is a based on numerous papers that Levitt wrote which were published in mainstream economics journals, and they all depend heavily on econometrics (data analysis, statistics, etc).

Yes, but mathematical and statistical work done without knowledge of its philosophical assumptions ("axioms", if you would) is poor data and poor analysis. This is not the natural sciences, you cannot "skip" philosophy and somehow come up with "objective" facts that are forever real. Humans are complicated, and technical analysis will help, but it will not make philosophy irrelevant. In fact, it would only make it more relevant.

I totally agree. You haven't really made a profound point though because all (or at least most) economists seem to know this. I may not be that informed about it, but that's because I am still just an undergrad. I'm even taking an econ course this quarter which discussed these things heavily in the first chapter.

Believe me, economists seem to know the limitations of their mathematical and empirical work (which partly results from the "axioms" you mentioned above). Essentially, economists use mathematics in order to derive refutable propositions, then statistics is used to test those refutable propositions. But their is always much debate between economists about because of their awareness of the limitations you alluded to above.

Yes, I agree with you. Quantitative analysis has a very important place in research. However, by itself alone, it is useless, like all other levels of analysis.

Yes, stats alone will get you nowhere (which is why theory is so important). And yes, in science you need many different types of analysis because each one independently is insufficient. It seems to me though, that out of all the social sciences, economics stresses knowledge of statistics the most, but maybe you disagree.

 

[opus]

While yes, we finally agree on something, you still have a strong perceivable bias because you're again giving economists the benefit of the doubt (par usual). If this was the case, there would be little criticism against orthodox (or "autistic") economics as a whole. This of course, is not true, and even I would never give trust to fellow sociologists as you would to fellow economists by default.

 

[TVP45]

All I can say is that, if all ideas are equally good, I want phlogiston put back in thermodynamics.

 

[John Creighto]

I think the nature of a true academic is to question but given some funding is amid at "proving a pree conceived bias" then it is inevitable that universities will attract some people that are more interested in advocacy then academics.

For instance in Canada the government use to give money to an advocacy group called the status of woman which would then in turn give the money to fund university research on "womans issues". The best way to reduce the bias in research is to give the money to universities directly with no strings attached.

When governments funnel money to universities through advocacy groups they are clearly trying in some respect to subvert academic freedom.

 

[John Creighto]

On another note if a department in a university is full of to much political B.S. then why not switch departments or universities?

 

[CloudStrife]

I listened to about 20 min of it, and that was enough. His examples are from private universities, not public ones. I'm sure he could go to the private, religious-based universities and find examples where the conservative view prevails over the liberal one. His bias is evident. I've worked entirely at public universities and have never seen any such examples of bias as he's describing, and likely, they're isolated incidents at the universities he's naming as well. In fact, he complains about his own department, yes strangely enough, he's a full professor who got through the tenure process and is allowed to teach his course every year...and when his students ask why they have never heard of those other authors before, why isn't his answer that it's because they learn about them in HIS course? The very fact that he teaches his course, and exposes the students to an alternative view, and that course counts toward their major, indicates that there is NOT a bias preventing the teaching of those subjects there. Academic freedom also means that he doesn't get to tell his colleagues what they should be teaching or studying either.

So! You are a Marxist professor. I despise thee.

 

[CloudStrife]

Kors is full of himself. His diatribe, a verbal polemic filled with unsubstantiated claims and invective, begins with a poor joke, and goes downhill from there. His claim, "American leftists seek to control the whole of student life," is ludicrous. I'm sure Kors is speaking to a sympathetic audience, who shares his delusions.

My experience has been that no faculty member has ever tried to influence my thoughts or understanding, nor those of any other classmate. The student bodies of which I've been a part, and which I encounter since then and today, reflect a spectrum of ideas, perspectives, beliefs, indeed as varied as one finds at PF. The faculties of the institutions I attended also exhibited a broad spectrum of beliefs, ideas, understanding, and perspective.

Cherry picking his evidence does not support the broad generalization of Kors's claims.

Kors is not persuasive. I guess I failed Kors's indoctrination.

Another one!