Economists Don't Know Everything

My knowledge of economics is only slightly more extensive than that of a graduate of Father Guido Sarducci’s “Five Minute University”, although I have been picking up a few pointers from the libertarian blogosphere. I took one undergrad intro course and decided that economics was the “dismal” science, not the “queen” science. All those graphs and numbers made my brain hurt. It is for this reason that I express very few opinions about economics.

Some economists (they know who they are), on the other hand, seem to feel that they are qualified to pontificate about just about anything. After all, every phenomenon is ultimately tied to economics, isn’t it? So when an economist opines about the existence or causes of global warming, that should carry some weight, right?

I think not. I am not a geologist or a meteorologist or a climatologist, so I have to get my global climate information from people who are. You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t consult economists or lawyers or radio talk show hosts on the issue. Here’s where I come down on the issues based on my "research":

§ Global climate is warming. Most climate scientists say so, and the naysayers are by and large affiliated with major polluting interests. As a rule of thumb, I am skeptical of claims by interested parties, e.g. I pay less heed to claims about the health benefits of chewing tobacco raised in a study funded by the Tobacco Association.

§ Some of this warming is due to natural cycles, but the speed and extent of change may be impacted by human activities. Even small changes can have enormous impacts in our complex climate system. If pollution contributes even 1% to the problem, this could have serious consequences, and we might be missing an opportunity to save ourselves a lot of grief down the road. I don’t have kids or anything, and I expect to be dead before the worst impacts are experienced, but some folks may actually care about the world their descendants will inherit. They have a longer time preference than I do.

To those who say that the climate is too big for humans to have an impact, remember that we once thought the lakes and oceans were so vast that we could dump all our waste in them with no adverse consequences. We thought the atmosphere was so vast that any amount of industrial pollutants could be pumped into the air without hurting anyone.

Another issue that some economists feel qualified to expostulate about is the merits of intelligent design theory versus Darwinian evolutionary theory. I acknowledge that economists call their field a “science”, just like political “scientists” and other social “scientists”. But let’s face it, social sciences are very different from biological or physical sciences, and an economist is only a little more qualified to opine about biology than a certified public accountant with a subscription to Discover magazine.

I generally consult biologists about biology, and I give less weight to opinions about biology from economists, accountants, lawyers or clergy. Here’s where I come down on the issues:

§ Intelligent design is not science. It’s just a way of giving up on a thorny problem by saying, “Oh, well, I personally can’t imagine how this feature might have happened without a designer, so let’s posit a designer with unspecified characteristics and stop thinking about it.” You can’t build a research design around ID.

§ Darwinian evolutionary theory is not perfect. It’s a work in progress like any really powerful theory. The flaws generate problems that lead to research that lead to refinements and so on. This is how hard science is supposed to work.

§ Whether to teach ID or evolutionary theory has nothing to do with science. This is a political matter. What would best serve the interests of the state? If you think the state would benefit from scientifically trained students, you will go for Darwin. If you think the state would be better served by students who reject the scientific consensus and adhere to a belief in a designer, ID is your bag.

I'm not saying that economists can't express opinions about these issues. I hope they do, but they will forgive me if I give them less weight than the opinions of some others.

What the economists can do for me is tell me what's up with the Iranian idea to trade oil in Euros? Should I stock up on canned goods and morphine?