Is economics a natural science?

Social Research, Summer, 2004 by Julie A. Nelson

Notice the value-laden adjectives in these descriptions--"uplifting," "amazing," "extraordinary," and "marvelous." Science-with-wonder studies and appreciates phenomena at the same time. In fact, the deeper the study, the deeper the appreciation.

Such a nondualistic view of matter and meaning is terribly hard to hold on to, given dominant cultural understandings--and even the way our language is structured. For example, one term used to describe a project such as Edelman and Tononi's is that they are seeking to "naturalize" consciousness--that is, to describe the mind as arising from material causes without recourse to alternative (purely mental or spiritual) substances. However, if you look up the definition of "to naturalize" in the Oxford English Dictionary, you find: "naturalize (7. b.) To reduce to a purely natural basis; to free from the supernatural or miraculous." In a sense this is correct--deus ex machina appeals to the supernatural are, as previously stated, not acceptable. But in another sense, the definition leans much too far toward a reductionist interpretation. In an important way, what Dawkins, Edelman and Tononi, McClintock, Kahneman, and others are saying is that nature itself is all "miraculous." It is amazing, marvelous, uplifting, extraordinary, and valuable.

This sense of wonder is one we can all touch, if we pause for a moment to perceive, as a child would, that we somehow exist, in bodies and space and time and relationships, in a way over which we have no control and that we can hardly hope to begin to understand. This sense of awe at just being is also likely at the base of our human spiritual impulses, although it has very little to do with any particular religious dogma or creed. At such a moment of wonder at all of existence, the material and the spiritual--the sense of being in a body and the sense of being part of something large and precious--are one and the same.

ECONOMICS-WITH-WON DER

How could this different notion of science help us in Heilbroner's project of creating a socially responsible capitalism? I see three ways.

First, science-with-wonder challenges the mechanistic notions of a socially amoral capitalism at a very basic level Without such a challenge to dualistic conceptions of science versus meaning, Heilbroner's project can be relegated, by conventional thinkers, to the realm of "socioeconomics"--perceived and portrayed as a sort of softheaded, touchy-feely (read: feminine) area--while mathematical modelers keep the academic high ground of being (read: masculine) "scientific economists." The basic dualistic image of purposeful humans versus a grinding, profit-maximizing mechanical capitalism would remain untouched.

Second, a notion of science-with-wonder could help transform economics back into a useful endeavor by shifting its focus from technique to content and consequences. Techniques such as mathematical modeling and econometric hypothesis testing are not "wrong." In fact, they can sometimes be quite useful. But a habit of excessively and reductionistically focusing on an extremely narrowly defined set of techniques is detrimental. It takes our attention away from the phenomenon we purport to study, rather than leading us further into it. Science-with-wonder is motivated by a sense of curiosity and concern, leading to a desire to carefully investigate and deeply understand the subject matter. The best economists I have known exemplify this approach. Most economists I have known, unfortunately, seem to be more motivated by personal professional ambition. Given the current state of the profession, this is most quickly satisfied by proving oneself clever at mathematical manipulation using accepted (though erroneous) models of human behavior.