The most verboten phrase in modern English?

By -
"I don't know."

Gracy Olmstead writes a nice post noting how reluctant people are to admit ignorance of anything in our culture.

If someone asks me if human-caused climate change is a real problem, I answer, "How would I know? I've never studied climate science." But almost everyone I talk to seems to be a climate scientist, since they all have very, very firm positions on the issue.

Or take recessions, a topic I have studied for over a decade. When asked what causes them, I answer "When I first began studying recessions, I knew exactly what caused them. But the longer I study the topic, the less clue I have."

Nevertheless, my dermatologist assures me that he knows exactly what causes them.

Comments

  1. Unknown2:34 PM

    Gene,

    I was just discussing this with a friend last night - it is incredible how people seem to just "know" everything. Completely irrational, of course, but it is what the average American (and I would say, the average person in the Western World) would say.

    I recall offhandedly making the claim that religion is not always bad for scientific pursuit; indeed, Catholic Europe is where science was born. Even though this person knew that I read very much before making claims like this, I was rebutted by a simple "No; it doesn't. Everyone knows this."

    The only way I have found to reply is to ask a question: "that is an interesting viewpoint. I have read and studied (give examples of x). What have you read and studied about it...?"

    Usually, they look stupefied.

    ReplyDelete
  2. scineram2:39 PM

    Nevertheless, my dermatologist assures me that he knows exactly what causes them.

    Did you direct him to mises.org in a 2005 checkup?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unknown2:46 PM

    Another reply could have been "Wow really? I'm a professional economist with a PhD and I'm not sure. You must know more than I do about economics."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah4:16 PM

      Good, except my PhD is in political theory.

      Delete
    2. Josiah Neeley12:34 PM

      Another reply could have been "Wow really? I'm a professional economist with a PhD and I'm not sure. You must know more than I do about economics."

      In my experience this sort of tactic doesn't work (whether or not it should). People get defensive and double down on their prior opinion. You're better off asking them to explain to you their position in detail, which may reveal to them how little they actually know.

      Delete
  4. Unknown5:42 PM

    Gene; I had no idea. I thought that you received a PhD from the London School of Economics!

    This is spectacular; now, when I refer folks to this website, I can say that the author is someone with a PhD in political theory.

    This means a lot to me and other people; there are a lot of rambling blogs on the internet (some might say that mine is one, actually haha) but a PhD confers legitimacy in some way.

    Congratulations. I would like a PhD in philosophy myself, but I do not know if I will be able to get a job with it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah6:16 PM

      My master's is from LSE, but it is in philosophy, not economics.

      Delete
  5. Bob Murphy12:26 PM

    I am not at all reluctant to say Gene Callahan is ignorant on many issues.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bob Murphy12:28 PM

    But seriously folks... I've noticed the same thing, Gene. Nobody at a holiday get-together would challenge a heart surgeon at dinner, but most would feel comfortable saying that an economist was full of crap.

    Of course, there are legitimate reasons for this difference in treatment...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bobybuilder4:35 PM

      Which kind of economist? An economist who insists his conclusions are true a priori and no facts can refute him, or some other kind?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more