Comments due Sept. 30, 2018
(The following is an essential read if one is to understand the difficulties encountered by those who believe in sustainability, ecologism and "ecological economics")
Do you see a duck or a rabbit?
Modern economics starts by making assumptions which are
dramatically in conflict with everything we know about human behavior (and firm
behavior) and applies mathematical reasoning to situations where it cannot be
applied, quantifying the unquantifiable and coming to completely absurd and
ridiculous conclusions. Nonetheless the brainwashing is powerful and effective.
It is a slow and painful process to undo.
Despite widespread dis-satisfaction, the vast majority of
dissidents argue that no paradigm shift is required. Instead of a complete
overhaul, we just need to patch-up the problem areas. In contrast to this
reformation, I would like to argue for a revolution. We need to re-think the
whole project of economics from scratch. Just like modern astronomy was created
by rejecting the concept of the heavenly spheres on which the stars rotated
around the earth, so creating a viable economics for the 21st century requires
rejecting the entire edifice of modern economics.
In “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, historical
studies by Kuhn show that there are two distinct phases in the progress of
scientific knowledge. In the phase he calls “normal science”, a fixed paradigm
is applied to solve problems of explaining phenomena and manipulating the world
via experiments. However, sometimes progress in knowledge occurs through a
second type of event called “scientific revolution”, when an existing paradigm
is overthrown, and replaced by a new and different paradigm. Paradigms
represent ways of looking at the world, with frameworks, concepts, axioms, and
methods. Different paradigms are incommensurable – terms in one paradigm are
meaningless in another. One cannot achieve paradigm shifts by arguments, since
concepts and terms of a new paradigm make no sense in terms of the old
paradigm. Instead, what is required is to put aside one way of looking at the
world, and attempt to understand another way of looking at the same world. It
is this putting aside – unlearning the old ways – which creates the greater
part of the difficulty in achieving paradigm shifts. As Keynes put it, “The
difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which
ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our
minds.” It is only by laying aside one coherent way of looking at the world
that it becomes possible to visualize alternatives.
This discussion can be summarized metaphorically by saying
that we all use glasses to see the world. The direct world out there is a
jumble of sensations – a matrix of points – which makes no sense by itself, and
must be interpreted using our own frameworks, represented by the glasses. This
means that ALL observations are tinged with subjectivity, and interpreted
within the frameworks created by our past experiences, successes and failures,
in viewing the world. A paradigm shift occurs if we remove the glasses we use
to view the world, and instead put on a different pair of glasses. A famous
experiment conducted by Professor Theodor Erismann, of the University of
Innsbruck put reversing glasses on his student and assistant Ivo Kohler. It
caused extreme disorientation and discomfort at first, but after about a week
of stumbling around, he adapted to this new way of seeing the world. His
subjective interpretative equipment learned to interpret the reversed image by
performing an additional reversal within the brain to arrive at a correct image
of the world. Now, when the glasses were removed, the world appeared to be
upside down to Ivo. On a much larger scale, this is what happened in Europe due
to the Great Transformation which transformed traditional society to a market
society, where everything is viewed a commodity for sale. Later, these ways of
thinking were spread throughout the world by colonization and Western
education. We learned to value everything according to its market price, and
forgot that the most precious things cannot be purchased.
We can now understand the extreme difficulty of creating a
paradigm shift. For those who have spent lifetimes learning to see the world
with a specific pair of glasses, these glasses become melded into the flesh,
and are impossible to remove. After failing to convince his contemporaries
about his Quantum theory, Max Planck disappointedly realized that science
progresses one funeral at a time. Thomas Kuhn also noted that paradigm shifts
do not occur by converting those faithful to the old paradigm, but by inducting
the young into the new worldview. Unlike the older generation, for younger and
more flexible minds, it is possible to take off glasses manufactured in the
Euclidean factory, and put on non-Euclidean glasses. Nonetheless, it is still a
disconcerting and uncomfortable experience, which will not be undertaken unless
there is some expectation of a great reward for this struggle and sacrifice.
The costs of paradigm shift must be paid upfront – one loses the ability to
talk to the mainstream when one describes the world using an alien framework.
The rewards are in the future, and highly speculative and uncertain.
Nonetheless, for reasons explained elsewhere, 8 it seems essential to make the
effort – the survival of humanity is at stake.
The increase in income has made people get rid of poverty, and at the same time, the consumption of natural resources is getting faster and faster. This article proposes the concept of the seventh overshooting day, but his calculation method has its drawbacks. Using this calculation method may underestimate the speed of resource consumption. In other words, the speed of natural resources may exceed our imagination. In my opinion, the cost of resources is very complicated and it is difficult to accurately measure it by calculation. What we have to do is not to accelerate the natural consumption and actively participate in environmental protection. xue ma
ReplyDeleteA paradigm shift is an interesting concept of how we replace old thinking with new ones, not only by replacing some parts of old thinking with new, but by totally revolutionizing it. It is always important to look back into history to see what has happened and to understand what will happen. The rejection of the concepts of the heavenly spheres on which the stars rotate around the earth was a great example of a paradigm shift. However, Galileo was brought before the Inquisition and put under house arrest for the remainder of his life when presenting the model of a non-earth-centered universe, because the idea was criticized and seemed as foolish. Probably because he was the only one backing it up and believing in it, making his evidence, documentation, and data useless.
ReplyDeleteMy point being, I do not think it is up to ecological and environmental economists themselves to develop completely new models and new concepts to make people think differently about the economy. The traditional economists will not simply give in and accept new revolutionized ways of looking at the economy, showing them data and graphs of what will happen will simply not cut it. It is up to each and every one to take the responsibility and act and think differently themselves. It is the action and belief of people that will make the difference. Because the one effective way of persuading traditional economics to revolutionize economics into being more environmental and sustainable, is to show them what is actually happening. We all need to believe in environmentalism, which will ultimately help environmental and ecological economists to make traditional economists realize that a paradigm shift is a must.
However, then there is a question about who believes in the environmental crisis and not, and I really hope a majority of people believes in it, can take action, which can ultimately convince economists to allow a new paradigm shift in economics. Again, can we make that sacrifice?
// Nils Erik Molin
I see a duck btw
DeleteHi Nils,
DeleteI agree with your stance on how to create ecological sustainability while still maintaining growth. Rather than discarding current models, economists should modify their analysis by taking environmental degradation into account.
- Christine Lin
This picture is very interesting. I saw it a long time ago. Different people see different things in the eyes, just like a thousand people have a thousand Hamlet in their eyes. This article uses a more professional terminology - paradigm shift. Everyone has different ways of thinking, and in general it is relatively fixed. It is difficult for many people to jump out of the inherent thinking mode. This is the same in economics and in environmental protection. Many people may now feel that environmental protection is not that important, but if one day there is an incentive, those who contribute to environmental protection can get higher wages and continue to do so, environmental protection will Become a daily life,Paradigm changes.
ReplyDeletexue ma
I agree that mathematical reasoning cannot always be accurately applied to determine modern economics and human behavior. When argued that a revolution is needed for people to look at economics a completely different way and “re-think economics from scratch”, a paradigm shift is also needed. A “scientific revolution” provides a new paradigm- a new outlook, and a new idea. I agree with Keynes that it is difficult to get people to believe in a new idea when they believe so strongly in their old one. Putting on a different pair of “glasses” and looking at the world a different way than everyone else, can create new ideas and possibly better solutions. Solutions to everyday problems, and economical problems.
ReplyDeleteAlaina White
Hi Alaina!
DeleteI agree that some new ways such as the paradigm shift can't necessarily be applied to everything and calculate exactly the results we would need. But having new ideas and a new way to see the world can be very useful as well.
-Nicole Katsnelson
To start off I see a duck. People's preception on aspects of life differ but these perceptions are hard to remove from people's minds. A change in perception is crucial to our society as it creates new ideas and ways of thinking but more often than not it proves to be difficult due to the fact that it is in our human nature to be nervous/ scared of what the unknown holds in store for us.
ReplyDeleteBefore, I saw the question below the picture , I saw a duck. After, I read the question I could see both a duck and a rabbit. I belive it's difficult for the older generation to inhabit the new obsecurities that have been occuring in the world. They are so used to what they were brought up with and what they grew up to see. Now that things are changing it's a lot harder for them to adapt. They are more inclined into grasping onto modifications or other occurences in the world that they are famliar with. No one likes change and that's understandable. But if we create new ways of viewing things and creating new steps or rules to visualizing things than maybe we would open up to more , establish more, and find more things that we didn't know about. I think the paradigm shift should be applied more and looked into. You don't have to forget the old ways but just learn to apply new ways and see different results.
ReplyDelete-Nicole Katsnelson
A paradigm shift is indeed essential to our understanding and developing of the relationship between economics and environmental issues. In order to adapt to our changing environment, we must begin thinking of new ways to approach economics. Although, as the article states- this won’t be easy and will require a complete “scientific revolution”, replacing traditional economic ways with new ideas that are eco-friendly. This can be done by convincing humanity that they will be rewarded with the changes made. With a new focus on environmental issues, the world will become a better place for us and the next generations coming. I agree that the newer generation is more open to eco friendly ideas, and more willing to make a change. This is because more awareness has arisen in the past few decades, and people are born into these new ideas. With the power of the younger generation and the factual evidence that global warming exists, we can work on a new scientific revolution for the economy.
ReplyDelete-Almira Ardolic
Hi Almira,
DeleteI really like your idea of giving individuals incentives to make environmental changes to shift ecological degradation in an equitable economy to ecological awareness in an equitable economy. However, how would this come about? Would there be a tax credit given to those take enviromental factors into consideration? How would the value of this incentive be measured?
With an increased awareness of the depletion of resources, I think that there needs to be communication between mainstream and ecological economists to create policy changes that can benefit the economy without destroying the environment.
- Christine Lin
When it comes to environmental issues, I feel as if we are currently experiencing a paradigm shift however we may not feel the effects. As Planck described it does indeed take one funeral at a time. In this sense, it may take over a couple years/decades to reintroduce a new way of thinking. It was start as a small collective but it does not matter how small it is because at the end of the day the paradigm shift can cause a wave of new influence. The relationship of economic and environmental issues was always mutually exclusive however now as the younger generation is bringing into awareness these issues and the tie between them then the research is having an effect. This in turn can push towards a paradigm shift because if one generation changes their actions then the outcomes will show in the next generation. For example, if more of the younger generation become vegetarian friendly then the effect will be a better environment for animal life. In return the animals will have an effect on plant life, and so on. This cannot take just one decade but indeed has to take a new life of its own. Therefore it is important that economists and environmentalists understand the idea of a paradigm shift because they cannot give up but in return help to move the masses.
ReplyDeleteThis does indeed sound easier said then done due to the ideas that traditional economists have developed however it is also important to bring in factual evidence and their outcomes to show the better side. Making someone change their glasses prescription is one thing but explaining and showing them how it influences and creates a better life for them and those around them is another.
Marta Krawczynski
Delete"paradigm shifts do not occur by converting those faithful to the old paradigm, but by inducting the young into the new worldview." I believe my generation is going to be responsible for leading the paradigm shift in the importance of environmental economic factors. We were raised during a time when global warming was a controversial topic and finding alternatives to fossil fuels were very much discussed. We have to show future generations the negative effects we have had on our planet. This will help negate the same mistake from happening in the future. If we do not take serious steps towards addressing these issue. We will be faced with serious consequences
ReplyDelete-Declan Tougias
I’ve seen this photo numerous times before and I always see a duck before I look for the rabbit.
ReplyDeleteThe nature of scientific revolutions has been a question posed by modern philosophy due to new crises in the basic concepts of mathematics, physics, and biology.
A paradigm shift, a concept identified by the American physicist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn, is a fundamental change in the basic concepts and experimental practices of a scientific discipline. Kuhn mentioned the notion of a paradigm shift in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). In its simplest form, a paradigm shift is a change in perception.
In a 2015 retrospective on Kuhn, Martin Cohen, a philosopher, describes the notion of a paradigm shift as a kind of intellectual virus which has spread from the hard sciences to social sciences, the arts, and common political rhetoric. Another philosopher, Paul Firebend, states that since scientific facts are only opinions, whose popularity is transitory and far from conclusive. An example of this is when the atom was discovered, and it was thought to be indivisible, until it was split to reveal protons, neutrons, and electrons inside. These too, seems like fundamental particles before scientists discovered that protons and neutrons are each made of three quarks.
The only way to gain an different understanding of the same world, we have to put aside the common perception and evolve our thinking in order to “visualize alternatives.”
An economy is sustainable only if it complies with the principles of ecology. The ecological economics paradigm offers a different perspective than mainstream economics. This looks at the relationship between economy and ecology to achieve sustainable alternatives to current patterns of economic growth and environmental degradation. The potential synergism between ecological economists, progressive economists, and legal scholars are in three-fold:
1. They must challenge the underlying assumptions of neoclassical economics
2. They must provide a compelling critique of mainstream economic growth by showing global ecological limits
3. They must provide analysis of the causes of environmental degradation
By establishing a dialogue between mainstream and ecological economics, it can help facilitate policies to create a more equitable and sustainable economy.
- Christine Lin
“The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds.” This idea is one that I often think about because it is so prevalent in history and our day to day lives. Regardless of the subject, whether it is social justice, religion, government, and even relationships, this is the common thread that runs through all of them. In order to open your mind to new ideas, you need to shed all of the boundaries that are holding you back. When it comes to social justice, there are waves of revolution with the youth usually at the front of the lines. In terms of religion, throughout history if one religion was not loved a new religion was created in response, such as the Catholics and the Protestants. If a government was not liked, it was overthrown. These revolutions show up time and time again and it is about time we had one in the field of education. Fundamental theories in psychology are suddenly unable to be replicated. Many economic theories require so many things to be held constant that it is almost impossible for that to happen in the real world. I think areas of research such as behavioral economics are becoming more and more necessary in order to explain the things mathematical formulas cannot. If we don't start to open our mind to new ideas like behavioral economics, the entire field of economics may become obsolete as people's faith begins to fade.
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding the need for a paradigm shift must be identified first and foremost to push the concept of the paradigm shift into the minds of others. The article states that it is an extremely difficult process because there are so many people who are intrenched in their beliefs. Overall the reason that paradigm shifts are essential is because it opens the viewpoints of the people to examine new ways to making them think about everyday theories. In regards to the principle of economics and the environment it appears that the two will remain separate because of the way people view the theories. However, in this case a paradigm shift is needed to make these two overlaps for a more beneficial global society. These two principles are so far removed that I would take a “scientific revolution”, as stated in the article, to create a more sustainability. The economic benefit of looking at the environment through the new “glasses” of economy would provide more benefit in return for humanity. Overall the need to replace traditional economics with eco-friendly economics would provide more lasting benefits for the global community. We the ever changing environmental issues and our need to adapt to it a paradigm shift is necessary to developing lasting sustainable practices.
ReplyDeleteAccording to this theory, change occurs when two conditions are met: first, a critical mass in the number or importance of "anomalies" which contradict the dominant paradigm, and second, the successful development of an alternative theory that better explains the prevailing evidence. Paradigms as identified by Kuhn are a common foundation of assumptions a canon of accepted ideas, and standards for accepting new research and theories into that canon. A paradigm spares effirt that might otherwise be exerted in constantly reexamining assumptions and can instead seek progress in fields which are less well understood. I believe that most people will pursue questions to which they believe they already know the answers, and when they encounter evidence that contradicts their existing views they generally try to suppress It or emphasize other compatible pieces of evidence .
ReplyDeleteA paradigm shift is definitely needed. Everyones minds should be clear and open to new things at all times even if It cannot change their beliefs.
In this image i see a Duck.
A paradigm is a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind, including all of the assumptions and ways of thinking and ways of interpretation that one might have. You can think of a paradigm as a self-contained view of reality, much like a colored lens that you look through. Except the trick with paradigms is that they don't feel like they are just a view of reality. They don't feel like they are a lens, so most of the time you're not aware that you're in this view and you're not aware that you're using a lens. It just feels like reality. We call it reality; we don't call it a view nor do we call it a model or a framework. We don't think of it that way; our mind just sees it as reality. This leads to self-deception possibilities.
ReplyDeleteIn 1962, Thomas Kuhn, a historian of science and a philosopher, published a revolutionary book called the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It was based on a very simple investigation. Kuhn was interested in understanding how science works; the process of science. What is science? How is it that it works? Rather than doing what most scientists and philosophers have been doing for hundreds and thousands of years, which is that they were speculating and theorizing about how science works. Instead, Kuhn took a historical perspective. He looked at how science has evolved over the last thousand to five hundred years to see what history actually tells us. Maybe the history of science tells us something other than what we assume science is. Maybe it can reveal some interesting stuff. And he did find some very interesting stuff, which has revolutionized how we think about the theoretical foundations of science. This is how we got the word "paradigm" in our common vernacular; he popularized the term "paradigm" because his work was so groundbreaking. Kuhn studied various scientific revolutions. Examples include the Copernican revolution in science and the Einsteinian revolution. Kuhn looked at how science has evolved. What he discovered is that science is a lot more conservative than people usually think. And that in practice, science works very differently than we think of it in theory. Kuhn discovered that science is highly subject to dogma, to cultural biases and to clinging to old frameworks. This notion shocked the scientific establishment because scientists liked to view their work and the whole process of sciences is very objective; they liked to view it as a universal process, not a human process nor a cultural process, but universal so that it's not even the human species engaged in this work, but something even higher. In reality, scientists are close-minded and very traditional.
Kuhn found four basic ways in which paradigms influence an inquiry. One is that they influence what is studied and what is researched. So, depending on your paradigm and whatever field you are working in, that will influence what things you study and research. Secondly, it influences the type of questions that get asked at all. Thirdly, it influences the exact structure and nature of the questions that are being asked in that field. And fourthly, the paradigm influences how the results are interpreted. Kuhn discovered that the interpretation of data is tricky, and this is where your paradigm (your entire framework of the world or your field) will have a heavy influence how you interpret the data, which data do you think is relevant and which is irrelevant.
- Jennifer Torsiello
By the way, the first thing I saw was a duck.
ReplyDelete- Jennifer Torsiello