How do we know what we know?

Positivism is the view that all knowledge is derived by reason and logic from sensory experience. Other ways of knowing, such as theology or intuition are rejected. Of course, post-modernity has been with us for some time but the social sciences – and economics in particular – had been pretty resistant to its influence

But positivism seems to have slipped out of favour in recently-published books. I noticed it first in my own field with the publication in 2017 of Philosophy and Public Administration; an introduction by Edoardo Ongaro which deals with the question never raised in social science textbooks “how do we know what we think we know”?

If I had been paying more attention to what was happening in the management field, I would have noticed “Strategic Management and organisational dynamics” by Ralph Stacey and Chris Mowles first published as far back as 1993; Chris Mowles’ “Rethinking management” (2011) and “Management and Uncertainty” (2015); and “Rethinking Management – confronting the roots and consequences of current theory and practice” by N Douglas and T Wykovski (2017), Stacey and Mowles put it very well –

There are a number of different, contradictory ways of explaining how human beings come to know anything. Furthermore, there is no widespread agreement as to which of these explanations is ‘true’ or even most useful.

The realist position probably commands most support amongst natural scientists and those social scientists, probably the majority, who seek the same status for their field as is accorded to the natural sciences.

Social constructionists point to a significant difference between natural and social phenomena. Humans interpret natural phenomena, those phenomena do not interpret themselves. However, when it comes to human phenomena, we are dealing with ourselves, phenomena that are already interpreting themselves. Many constructionists hold, therefore, that while the traditional scientific approach might be applicable in the natural sciences it is not in the human sciences.

Pragmatists are keen to identify those aspects of scientific method, contestation for example, which are common to both natural and social sciences.

Both our understanding of reality, and the categories which we develop to understand it, evolve over time informed by our experience of living in the world and in debate and contestation over what we take that experience to mean.

Social constructionists and pragmatists hold that it is impossible to take the position of objective observer and that those who claim to do so are simply ignoring the impact of their own participation or lack of it.

We have to recognise that the approach we adopt is the product of who we are and how we think. This, in turn, is the distillation of our personal histories of relating to other people over many years in the particular communities we have lived and do live in which also have histories.

We can never claim to stand outside our own experience, outside the web of relationships that we are a part of, and take the role of objective observer. Instead, we have to take the role of inquiring participant (Reason, 1988). Furthermore, reflexivity is not simply an individual activity dependent on that individual person’s history alone. This is because we are always members of a community that has a history and traditions of thought. Reflexivity, therefore, involves being aware of the impact on how one thinks of both one’s personal history and the histor ons of thought of one’s community. It is for this reason that Chapters 3 and 12 (of Stacey and Mowles’ book) give brief accounts of the central traditions in Western thought. Just how human beings know anything, and whether the individual or the group is primary, are hotly contested issues with no clear truth

Approaches and methodologies in social science – a pluralist perspective D Della Porta and 

M Keating 2008

The last post was about texts I would recommend for those

• baffled by Economics

• who appreciate, however, that illiteracy about economic and financial matters in unacceptable

• who are prepared to invest some time in understanding the subject’s strengths AND weaknesses

I’ve been heartened by the growth of a more pluralist approach to the discipline in the new millennium – books such as

Economic Literacy – basic economics with an attitude Fred Weaver (2^nd ed 2007)

Rethinking Economics – and intro to pluralist economics ed L Fischer et al (2018)

Applied Economics – thinking beyond stage one Thomas Sewell (2019)

Economy Studies – a guide to rethinking economics eduation de Mujnck and Tielemann (2021)

A more traditional approach

Ten principles of Economics Gregor Mankiw 5^th ed a multi-millionnaire from his sale of the textbook; and an adviser to Republican Presidents.