Economic Analysis of Public Intellectuals

[Fan of Science]

I'm somewhat surprised that this forum does not have a special category for economic issues, so thought I would make a post showing an insightful way in which economics can be used, as opposed to just pure philosophy. For those who do not know, Richard Posner is the most prolific writer of any federal appellate court judge in the USA. He is also one of the leading advocates for an approach to law that involves the economic analysis of law. One of the books Posner wrote was one on the economic analysis of "public intellectuals." After reading it, I pretty much take any opinion from a public intellectual with a grain of salt and do not give it much weight.

Let's take for example the public intellectual named Sam Harris and his book, The Moral Landscape. In that book, Harris claimed that science could answer moral questions all by itself and that as a neuroscientist, neuroscientists like himself should be given the power to tell us what is morally correct by the use of brain scans. Harris also argued that lie detectors should be placed in all public areas, so people won't be able to tell lies, and with the advent of better lie detectors, Americans will no longer need their Constitutional right to remain silent.

Now, what does Posner's economic analysis tell us about the merits of Harris's work? Basically not to rely on it. What is the market for a public intellectual's work? It's a lay audience, not a professional one. This means that a public intellectual can write all sorts of nonsense in a book intended for popular consumption. The same person writing for a professional peer-reviewed journal, and a professional audience, would be far more cautious. In the case of Harris, scientists are taught throughout their careers that science does not make any value judgments, so science cannot answer moral issues all by itself. Neurologists also know that it is impossible to determine general welfare by looking at someone's brain scan. Harris would never make these claims in an article submitted to a professional peer-reviewed journal, or before an audience of professional scientists.

One should also be skeptical of any relatively young public intellectual. In economics the cost of doing anything is what was foregone as a result. If Harris was a great scientist, then every hour he spends writing for popular culture is an hour he cannot spend doing innovative research. Top scientists seldom engage in popular writing and discussions because it is too costly for them. After they have done their best work, and they start to slow down as they age, then they are more inclined to engage with the mass public. Like Milton Friedman did after doing his work that won him a Nobel prize in economics. At a certain point, he knew his best research days were over, and that's when he dedicated himself to popularizing his economic ideas. Given Harris's young age, and the fact he has done nothing of significance in neuroscience, this is an added reason from economics to ignore his pronouncements.

Does anyone really think that a public intellectual isn't slipping some nonsense into the books they write for a lay audience that they would never try to promote before a professional audience that can call them on their ********? From an economic standpoint, one should be quite skeptical of the claims public intellectuals make, especially younger ones.

[Fooloso4]

Fan of Science:

Now, what does Posner's economic analysis tell us about the merits of Harris's work? Basically not to rely on it. What is the market for a public intellectual's work? It's a lay audience, not a professional one.

The professional audience best able to evaluate his contribution to the field of neuroscience would neuroscientists, but what is it about neuroscientists that make them more qualified than others to evaluate a work like The Moral Landscape? Are neuroscientists better able to discuss the merits of placing lie detectors in public areas? How much do most neuroscientists even know about lie detectors or the social and psychological consequences of this idea?

If Harris was a great scientist, then every hour he spends writing for popular culture is an hour he cannot spend doing innovative research.

I am not a fan of Harris but this is nonsense. It completely ignores the question of what interests and motivates him or anyone else who gets a degree in one thing to pursue something else. Maybe he thinks he can do more good by addressing a popular audience. Maybe his concerns with issues of public concern compete with or outweigh his interests in neuroscience

In the case of Harris, scientists are taught throughout their careers that science does not make any value judgments, so science cannot answer moral issues all by itself.

Science does not make moral judgments but scientists do. Climatology makes no moral or value judgments but climatologists do. Science can and does inform moral deliberation and value judgments. I do not know exactly what Harris is claiming but it is not unreasonable to think that neuroscience will bring a new perspective and provide useful tools to be applied to moral issues along with other issues relating to human behavior, emotions, etc.

Neurologists also know that it is impossible to determine general welfare by looking at someone's brain scan.

Neuroscience is still in its infancy. What it will be possible to do will be determined by what is done. Perhaps his work will motivate someone to become a neuroscientist and as they progress and as the science progresses they will find that Harris was wrong about some things and their school books were wrong about some things and even the peer reviewed journals were wrong on some things.

Top scientists seldom engage in popular writing and discussions because it is too costly for them.

Most scientists do not do science because they want to a “top scientist”. I am not aware of any statistics that show that someone decides to do something else because they cannot be a top scientist, but plenty do go on to do other things for various reasons. As with anything else, there are few who are at the top and different ways in which to measure who is at the top and different ways in which someone might stumble to the top. Someone may not be a “top scientist” or even a working scientist because they choose not to spend their their time doing research, or have gotten fed up with writing grant proposals, or complying with the conditions that would allow them to do the research that interests them.

Like Milton Friedman did after doing his work that won him a Nobel prize in economics. At a certain point, he knew his best research days were over, and that's when he dedicated himself to popularizing his economic ideas.

Not everyone thinks their best days are over at a certain point as can be confirmed by looking at the faculty of top research universities and looking at their accomplishments. When one decides they want to enter public discourse does not follow any particular pattern.

Given Harris's young age, and the fact he has done nothing of significance in neuroscience, this is an added reason from economics to ignore his pronouncements.

How is this a conclusion reached from economics? He may be doing very well economically from book sales and lecture fees. The fact that he sell a lot of books is of economic significance not only to him but as a measure of his worth to the public that is willing to buy his work. How does peer review relate to economics?

His work like the work of anyone else should be judged on it own merits. A top scientist who has retired and written a popular work must still take a position on controversial issues, and once they step beyond the area of their expertise their status as a top scientist may become irrelevant.

[Fan of Science]

A neuroscientist would be in the best position to judge Harris's claims regarding the use of brain scans. As far as the more general claim from Harris that science, all by itself, can answer moral questions, an audience of professional scientists would either laugh their asses off at that assertion, or roll their eyes with disdain. As far as his claims about the 5th Amendment, a professional audience of attorneys would be in the best position to evaluate his claims regarding Constitutional law. As far as Harris's claims about the validity of his lie detectors, again, neuroscientists would be an excellent professional audience to judge the merits of such claims. Harris makes a number of claims in areas where he has no expertise of any kind, including on topics like religion, economics, history, etc., but that does not mean a professional audience wouldn't be in a better position than a lay audience to judge his claims ---- it simply means more than one professional audience may be needed.

The very fact that Harris makes pronouncements, not just on neuroscience, but on topics like economics which he knows little about, alone shows why one should be suspicious of his claims. As an economist will tell you, it takes years to develop a single specialty, and it is unlikely that Harris is qualified in numerous specialties, which would be required to justify his comments on virtually every topic under the sun.

Harris' comes from a wealthy show-biz family and was marketed by his family as a "public intellectual." He dropped out of college for nine years to do drugs and study religion in the East. He's never had to work. The point is, however, if he were a good scientist, he would have been spending his time doing actual science, making his mark in that field, as opposed to writing pop books with no real substance of any kind.

Harris' works should be judged on their merits. He fails miserably. The point is that economics gives us an insight for why this is. There is no market mechanism to provide a safety-check on his claims, since he is not writing for a professional audience that can easily see through his ********.

[Hereandnow]

You come down too hard on Harris, even if he is a charlatan, or, he makes extravagant statements without the rigor we would expect in a well thought out thesis, this being what charlatans often do. I think he has a point, just as I think Skinner had a point in his Beyond Freedom and Dignity and his Walden II. The premise is, if we divest the world of assumptions like freedom, which make no sense at all, not just from the perspective of science, but of sheer logicality (though if the discussion turns to freedom as choice, and choice as a manifest feature of possibility that is laid before an agency of judgment and action, then, since this puts causal theory "on hold," freedom does make a certain sense. But I never have been able to get around what Kant called the apodictic certainty of causality in his transcendental deduction. This is another discussion altogether, but the point is that we are bound to logicality and things rising up ex nihilo is an intuitive impossibility); and we conceive of a world constrained only in what presents itself, then we are a liberated from a great deal foolishness in our moral thinking. Free of terms like 'accountability' and 'responsibility' and 'guilt' and 'merit' and 'desert.' All of this talk that sustains our moral systems of thinking about what is just and fair is nonsense in its metaphysical underpinnings. Free of this, we can stop thinking that people that do miserably in the world deserve it, adn we can attend to the business of managing our affairs.

The bold move here is when knowledge makes a claim in the realm of value judgment. Who is to say that Beethoven is better than rap? Or that romantic poetry is better than modern? These are subjective, not public and demonstrable like the spectrum of a star's light or the escape velocity from earth. But why can't value be measured? Perhaps not now, but is it so impossible to speculate reasonably that future hedonic calculators could be so nuanced that judgment about which is best could be visibly rendered? Isn't it true that a great deal of what gives popular culture its buoyancy is simply that we are constrained to yield for the sake of what Edmond Burke once called the leveling of culture and values, so that all can feel equal, and not because those who, and a page from Mill here, know both actually concede their equality? All ad hominem mud slinging aside, Harris is right: if we are willing to admit that values do have objective and quantifiable possibilities, that yes, Beethoven is better than rap (for the most part, that is. And what rap you can think of that approaches an appreciation of Beethoven, does so because it possesses the qualities so cherished in this latter. Now that is an interesting issue!).

-- Updated July 17th, 2017, 11:05 pm to add the following --

....; then maybe one day scientists can stand before a monitor and adjust, align, correct, and balance a human world to maximize it efficiency in producing bliss. Of maybe all we need to do is sit down and meditate, and sit quietly and do nothing.

[Spectrum]

I wonder you have read Harris' Moral Landscape.

Here are his views;

I will argue, however, that questions about values—about meaning, morality, and life’s larger purpose—are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. pg 3
The goal of this book is to begin a conversation about how moral truth can be understood in the context of science.
While the argument I make in this book is bound to be controversial, it rests on a very simple premise: human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on states of the human brain.

The underlying claim is that while science is the best authority on the workings of the physical universe, religion is the best authority on meaning, values, morality, and the good life. I hope to persuade you that this is not only untrue, it could not possibly be true. .7

Throughout this book I make reference to a hypothetical space that I call “the moral landscape”—a space of real and potential outcomes whose peaks correspond to the heights of potential well-being and whose valleys represent the deepest possible suffering. .7

First, I want to be very clear about my general thesis:
I am not suggesting that science can give us an evolutionary or neurobiological account of what people do in the name of “morality.”
Nor am I merely saying that science can help us get what we want out of life.
These would be quite banal claims to make—unless one happens to doubt the truth of evolution, the mind’s dependency on the brain, or the general utility of science.
Rather I am arguing that science can, in principle, help us understand what we should do and should want—and, therefore, what other people should do and should want in order to live the best lives possible.
My claim is that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, and such answers may one day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of mind. - 24

Science cannot tell us why, scientifically, we should value health. But once we admit that health is the proper concern of medicine, we can then study and promote it through science. 30

Harris do not seem to make the extra claim you attribute to him.
What he is claiming is Science "can help to understand" in a better sense and not on an absolute sense.

What Harris is trying to do is to break the taboo that Morality is exclusive to religion. Harris is claiming Science can break this taboo and claiming that Science can help. He did not claim Science will monopolize as the sole custodian of morality.

[Fooloso4]

So, it appears that you real concern here is to criticize Harris and not an economic analysis of public intellectuals. It is not clear what the connection is between economics and public intellectuals. The relationship between writing for a popular audience and professional status does not seem so straightforward. Science writers are a good example. They do not have specialized knowledge of each of the sciences they write about but know how to research the literature and consult professionals. The same is true of writers on other technical issues such as your example of Constitutional law. A worthy and conscientious public intellectual’s area of competency is ideas and the ability to communicate those ideas to the public. The quality of research in peer reviewed journals may be high but the quality of writing often is not. Professionals in technical or specialized fields may know a lot about a little. They may not have the breadth of knowledge and insight that a public intellectual might.

As with anything for public consumption there is a lot of dreck. An author’s CV is no assurance of the quality of the work produced. It is up to the author and publisher to set the level of quality of the work. The highest levels of discourse will always attract a limited audience.

[Burning ghost]

Neuroscientists are people with opinions that can differ quite drastically.

[Fan of Science]

Sorry, Fool, but you are way off base. The fact that Harris's opinions are so flawed is explained by the economic analysis I gave. It's doubtful Harris would ever write for a professional journal and make the claims he does in his books written for a law audience. That's because a professional audience would know better than to accept his fluff opinions, while a lay audience is not in a position to critically question much of what he claims. That's why so many public intellectuals end up misleading people ---- because there is no real market mechanism that acts as a check against what they write.

I should also add that Posner pointed out that one of the reasons people read public intellectuals is to form identities with others who are also fans of the same so-called intellectual. This could easily include you, since you seem so defensive regarding any just criticism against Harris.

-- Updated July 18th, 2017, 11:23 am to add the following --

Burning: On the basic fundamentals of neuroscience, most neuroscientists will not have widely divergent opinions. The vast majority of neuroscientists know that science does not make value judgments.

[Togo1]

Burning: On the basic fundamentals of neuroscience, most neuroscientists will not have widely divergent opinions. The vast majority of neuroscientists know that science does not make value judgments.

Yeah, but lie detectors do. The problem with turning a brain scanner into a lie dector is that it involves a value judgement. I'm quite familiar with the neurology behind the kinds of lie dectors he's talking about, if that becomes relevant...

Harris' work isn't really science though. It's a mix of philosophy and rhetoric, and the logical rigour is quite poor.

[Fan of Science]

Of course Harris's public pronouncements do not involve real science --- but he claims that it does and that's the problem. Now, we have a lot of people on social media claiming that science determines moral values, all by itself, because of people like Harris and Dawkins making that fraudulent claim. It's virtually impossible to explain to these Harris fans how mistaken they are. Their almost universal, immediate response is to accuse anyone who points out that science does not make value judgments as being a Christian fundamentalist whose opinions do not count. I'm an atheist myself, but will always stand against anyone, including a fellow atheist like Harris or Dawkins, who misinforms people about science. Don't even get me started on Harris's economic pronouncements. Childish doesn't even begin to cover it.

[Fooloso4]

Fan of Science:

The fact that Harris's opinions are so flawed is explained by the economic analysis I gave.

But despite several requests you did not give an economic analysis. The closest you have gotten is to refer to peer review as a market mechanism.

It's doubtful Harris would ever write for a professional journal and make the claims he does in his books written for a law audience.

Yes, the standards of peer review journals are quite different than those of works intended for a popular audience. No economic analysis needed to see that. It is more a matter of the standards of practice of a discipline. What insight is gained by looking at this in market terms?

That's because a professional audience would know better than to accept his fluff opinions, while a lay audience is not in a position to critically question much of what he claims.

By the same token a lay audience, even an educated lay audience, is not going to be able to read and understand highly technical peer reviewed journals. We can talk about a marketplace of ideas, but treating ideas as a commodity raises serious problems and concerns. Some people may buy junk food as well as the idea that the should not eat gluten. Neither the food nor the advice may be good for them. In a few years there will be a new fad they will buy into. Science may add to the confusion because different studies yield different results and no consensus is reached, or where there is consensus such as with is the old food pyramid, that has now been abandoned. We are told that fat is bad, fat is good, low carb is good and low carb is bad, don’t eat eggs because of cholesterol and dietary cholesterol does not have an adverse affect, that statins should be taken by everyone whose lipid profile is not in a certain range (and what that range is varies) and that the real culprit is not cholesterol but inflammation, etc.

That's why so many public intellectuals end up misleading people ---- because there is no real market mechanism that acts as a check against what they write.

As the examples above show, with regard to these issues the blame cannot be laid at the feet of public intellectuals.

The other side of the coin is that peer review is not as objective as might appear from the outside. Who knows who can play a significant role - work written or co-authored by recognized names may be given more attention than something from someone no one recognizes from a lab that no one is familiar with and ideas that run counter to the mainstream are resisted. In other words the status quo is maintained and is slow to change.

I should also add that Posner pointed out that one of the reasons people read public intellectuals is to form identities with others who are also fans of the same so-called intellectual. This could easily include you, since you seem so defensive regarding any just criticism against Harris.

You must have me confused with someone else. I have said very little about Harris. What I did say in my first post is that I am not a fan, that (since I have not read the book) I do not know what he is claiming, that perhaps his work will motivate someone to go into the field of neuroscience and find out that Harris was wrong about some things, and that he has sold a lot of books. In my second post the only mention of Harris was to say that your prior post seems to have been concerned with a criticism of him and not an economic analysis of public intellectuals. Everything else I have discussed is about what I thought the topic was about, namely public intellectuals, not Harris. It was my tacit and now my explicit opinion that a discussion of public intellectuals should not focus on one person, whether that be Harris or anyone else. And to be clear, I am not defending public intellectuals. I am attempting to discuss them and this means pointing to both the benefit and harm. As I concluded my last post, the highest levels of discourse will always attract a limited audience.

[Hereandnow]

But, Fan of Science, you never put out there what it is about objectifying value as a science, say, objectifies sensory intuitions. I mean, you don't have to even reference your ideas, just say what they are. Who cares about sentences that begin "neuroscientists agree..." or "economists take issue..." Why not just put the idea out there so i see the argument you think is so damning to a science of ethics? So far, you present your objections without substance or argument.

And atheism is very early in the game. I can remember when I began with atheism, then moved on.

[Synthesis]

This means that a public intellectual can write all sorts of nonsense in a book intended for popular consumption. The same person writing for a professional peer-reviewed journal, and a professional audience, would be far more cautious.

Does anyone really think that a public intellectual isn't slipping some nonsense into the books they write for a lay audience that they would never try to promote before a professional audience that can call them on their ********?

I would argue the opposite. Within peer reviewed publications, you generally find only verbiage that supports the status quo. Public media such as YouTube contains far more truth than does the writings of the sainthood in any discipline.

I do agree that there should be a separate forum on economics considering the enormity of what is taking place as we speak.

[Spectrum]

Sorry, Fool, but you are way off base. The fact that Harris's opinions are so flawed is explained by the economic analysis I gave. It's doubtful Harris would ever write for a professional journal and make the claims he does in his books written for a law audience. That's because a professional audience would know better than to accept his fluff opinions, while a lay audience is not in a position to critically question much of what he claims. That's why so many public intellectuals end up misleading people ---- because there is no real market mechanism that acts as a check against what they write.

Despite my extracts from Harris' book, The Moral Landscape you are still not getting the point. Note this from my earlier post.

Rather I am arguing that science can, in principle, help us understand what we should do and should want—and, therefore, what other people should do and should want in order to live the best lives possible.

If what you stated is merely Harris' opinion, then they are just "opinions" and opinions are views that has very very low 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' as such have a high possibility to be flawed and possibility of being true only when proven.
I have read most of Harris' book and I noted his views are based on a reasonably degree of objectivity and his own high level of confidence. His views are not exactly "opinions' but rather are hypothesis he abducted from published papers. As hypothesis they need to be proven before they can be accepted otherwise they will go to the "recycle bin" in time.

I believe as long as Harris is NOT going in the direction "Science is the ONLY WAY," views, opinions, speculation, hypothesis on a rational and non-contradictory is always a healthy recommendation welcome. The reader must then use his discretion to accept or reject the views of others.

I think you are following Peter Jordanson critique of public intellectuals, especially atheists like Harris and Dawkins.

Peter Jordanson is an interesting speaker but the point that he is basically a theist [gnostic] made his views somewhat 'constipated'.

That's why so many public intellectuals end up misleading people ---- because there is no real market mechanism that acts as a check against what they write.

There are lots of reviews with strong negative criticisms and positive constructive critiques to Harris' Moral Landscape. Do a google on Review of The Moral Landscape. My approach is to read as many reviews as possible on whatever books [notable ones] I read.

[Fan of Science]

Harris's statements in the Moral Landscape, as well as on many videos, clearly state that science, all by itself, can determine moral values. It's even in the subtitle to his book. Now, as quite often happens with Harris, he later on figures out that he screwed the pooch on an earlier claim. However, in Harris-speak, he never admits to having made an error, but, instead, insists he was merely misunderstood. Harris has made such claims on numerous faulty positions of his, including his claim that religious moderates are more dangerous than religious extremists, while lately conceding that we need religious moderates to fight the extremists. This is what happens when a person pretends to know something about the subjects he writes publicly about. Harris is no expert on history, economics, religion, sociology, law, and many other subjects he claims to be an expert in.

By the way, has Harris ever established any rational basis for being a moral realist? No. He simply assumes this position, while claiming that religious people who make similar assumptions are irrational. Rather odd duck on around.