How has economic thought evolved throughout the years along with the development of the other modern science disciplines? What is the role of human agency, and what are the philosophical underpinnings of economic thought?
Margaret Schabas is a professor of philosophy at the University of British Columbia, and also the author of several books. Her latest work is A Philosopher's Economist: Hume and the Rise of Capitalism.
Greg and Margaret discuss how economics evolved from natural philosophy. The conversation delves into historical perspectives and the major influence of figures like Adam Smith and David Hume. Margaret explains the interplay between natural sciences and social sciences.
*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*
Show Links:
Recommended Resources:
Guest Profile:
Her Work:
Episode Quotes:
How the 18th century shaped our understanding of economic growth and labor
09:13: The real concept of growth of an expanding economy really only takes hold in the early 18th century. And then the question is, how does this happen, and is it through labor? And if it's labor, is it at the expense of other organisms? Arguably, it is. We humans are now going to edge up to 10 billion, and presumably, we've done that very much at the expense of other organisms. But that's not how they're thinking in the 18th century; they're not really thinking that way at all. So then there are a lot of questions that don't get fully answered, and the labor theory of value is an attempt, I think, partly to answer that: that it's through efficiency of labor and increased skills and quality of labor, the intensification of labor, say per unit hour, through the assistance of capital. That allows us to produce more, and we're clearly much wealthier now than our ancestors three centuries ago, at least on average.
Philosophy is best grounded in historical analysis
53:22: Philosophy, to me, is always best grounded in historical analysis. So, every book I've written, I pose a philosophical question: Why is economics a mathematical science? Or why do people believe there are laws in the economy? And then I pursue it historically, because I think just doing it in one’s study, without the empirical resources of the actual discipline, is a disservice, too. But those are my views. I'm trained in the history and philosophy of science, and I think it's a discipline. I think it's best done if you have important philosophical questions to motivate your historical research, and vice versa. To do philosophy of science really is best done if you can appeal or note important historical case studies.
Strong empiricism and the enlightenment’s legacy in social sciences
42:03: I think that's the reigning view: that there is an empirical fact of the matter that can resolve a lot of questions that once were purely philosophical, and, of course, there'll always be disagreements empirically, and there's always question-begging moves in what methods one uses. And so the empirical record will never fully resolve any question, but I think the general thrust is towards a strong empiricism, and, in that sense, I think that's the 18th century—the Enlightenment. If you think about the great philosophers of the 18th century, starting with people like Voltaire, Mandeville, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Hume, and Smith—and one can go on—they're all contributing to what we call the social sciences.
