The Pleasure of Finding Things Out

One of the main complications in economics is finding the correct balance between scientific (or empirical) thinking and decision-making, and philosophical (or moral or political) thinking and decision-making.

The current economic crisis has shown us that the economics profession doesn’t know enough about how the economy works to help us define clear rules for how the banking system should work, or how a multi-country currency like the Euro should work, in order to prevent these things from threatening the stability of the entire economic system. Perhaps a few economists know enough to help us develop appropriate rules but how would we go about identifying them?

In practice, we determine the rules for these systems by electing politicians, and their advisors, to set the rules on our behalf. However, if economists don’t know the appropriate rules then why should we expect politicians to be able to set such rules? Also, if we want stable banking and currency systems then what logic should we use in casting our votes in elections?

Some people vote on a moral basis: people should be more self-reliant, or society should be fairer, or we should be more careful with the environment. Other people vote for selfish reasons: they want a promised tax cut or benefit increase. Yet more people vote simply to get rid of an incompetent or corrupt government and replace it with something (anything) different. Perhaps, we can rely on the wisdom of crowds. More likely, we just have no choice but to rely on this type of decision making.

Nobody votes for anyone who has a scientific understanding of how banks and currencies actually work. Of course, that’s because no-one seems to have this understanding. Nevertheless, it’s difficult to understand why we don’t appear to think it’s important to know how these things actually work. There is no relationship between a moral choice, such as a vote for a fairer society, and an understanding of relatively apolitical truths relating to banking systems and currencies. How do we expect these things to work out well?

Somehow, the balance between scientific thinking and philosophical thinking feels wrong. Perhaps, politicians are better salesmen than scientists? Perhaps, scientists confuse the rest of us by using complex jargon and mathematics? Perhaps we just don’t trust people who look like an archetypal ‘nutty professor’? Perhaps we find it difficult to distinguish ‘scientific method’ and ‘scientists’? Perhaps science is just too much effort?

I don’t have heroes but, if I did, one would be Richard Feynman. Feynman was a Nobel prize-winning physicist. He was also a good talker, he used plain English rather than jargon, and he didn’t look like a nutty professor. He understood that scientific method was more important than the ego of any scientist. He was a great ambassador for the virtues of scientific thinking such as curiosity, open-mindedness, rigour, perseverance, humour and humility in the face of observed practical evidence.

Feynman was featured in a number of BBC documentaries. In particular, he discussed his views on scientific thinking in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. He discussed the pleasure of finding things out about a remote country in Asia called Tannu Tuva in The Last Journey of a Genius. Some of Feynman’s greatest hits are also featured in a number of shorter YouTube videos.

Watch a selection of Feynman’s thoughts after the jump.


The Feynman series: Beauty



The Feynman series: Honours



The Feynman series: Curiosity



Feynman on scientific method



The Pleasure of Finding Things Out



The Last Journey of a Genius