Really enjoyed this discussion; Dr Bessner is an awesome guest. Though I see 3 major errors in his reasoning in this discussion:
(1) Merit Motte and Bailey: Dr Bessner starts off the meritocracy discussion by saying meritocracy is a "joke" (the "bailey"). Dr Bessner makes the strong claim that all instances of success / hierarchy are based on things other than merit (such as the intellectual capabilities between ivy league and non ivy league schools). He even extends this argument to scientific ideas (like game theory), saying the defining factor for the emergence of scientific ideas is Power, and not intellectual merit (which may be true in the history literature, where falsifiability and a priori predictiveness seem to be forgone conclusions). This argument on its face is reductionist, and pretty easy to discredit (by simply making an appeal to variability in competence levels within any species, including humans --- or by appealing to the predictive utility of different theories that "Power" has no control over). But interestingly, when Dr Loury presses Dr Bessner on the predictive utility of game theory and other foundational theories in economics, he retreats to a position that's easier to defend: the theories do have intellectual merit, but Power played a role in their selection (the "motte").
(2) Selective appeal to "history" as evidence: Throughout the discussion, Dr Bessner frequently rebuts Dr Loury's points by saying something along the lines of: "Where in recent history do we see evidence of that happening?". Then when Dr Loury poses the same question, (paraphrasing) "Where is this utopian, non-capitalistic society", Dr Bessner's response is (paraphrasing) "Nation-states have only been around for 350 years, give it time". Dr Bessner, if you really believe that's a good defense (which it very well may be), then you have to retract all your prior rebuttals where you use the same argument against Dr Loury. Otherwise, you aren't being internally consistent.
(3) Unclear terminology: Dr Bessner's central thesis is that all bad things in the world (poverty, inequality, war, colonialism, environmental waste and destruction) are caused by capitalism. While the argument itself is a bit weak on its face (given all the historical instances of poverty, inequality, war, imperialism, env damage that predate modern capitalism), it would still help if he gave a clear definition of what he means here. My guess is his definition of capitalism is: modern industry & technology, massive corporations, and regulatory capture. If so, he should specify, otherwise his claims are vague and unfalsifiable.
I love the back and forth between Dr Loury and Dr Bessner, and very much appreciate his perspective. I hope he continues to be a guest on the Glenn Show. However, in this discussion specifically, I think it would have helped if he was a bit more consistent and a bit more specific.
Side note: Dr Bessner laments that modern science "fetishizes" quantitative theories. He blames the irrational want for certainty. However, the emphasis on quant could just as easily be explained by the frustration of dealing with unfalsifiable, vaguely defined, internally inconsistent "theories" from historically nonscientific disciplines. Obsessing over certainty might be irrational, but Dr Bessner clear overconfidence in his own discipline (history and political science) seems much more intellectually problematic than the "fetishization" of mathematical theories, who's predictions can actually be empirically tested a priori and are required to be internally consistent. I understand that history is not necessarily aimed at being a science (where predictiveness, consistency, and counterfactual reasoning are), that's totally fine. Taking aim at the quantitative nature of the sciences from the humanities department is throwing stones from a glass house.
Really enjoyed this discussion; Dr Bessner is an awesome guest. Though I see 3 major errors in his reasoning in this discussion:
(1) Merit Motte and Bailey: Dr Bessner starts off the meritocracy discussion by saying meritocracy is a "joke" (the "bailey"). Dr Bessner makes the strong claim that all instances of success / hierarchy are based on things other than merit (such as the intellectual capabilities between ivy league and non ivy league schools). He even extends this argument to scientific ideas (like game theory), saying the defining factor for the emergence of scientific ideas is Power, and not intellectual merit (which may be true in the history literature, where falsifiability and a priori predictiveness seem to be forgone conclusions). This argument on its face is reductionist, and pretty easy to discredit (by simply making an appeal to variability in competence levels within any species, including humans --- or by appealing to the predictive utility of different theories that "Power" has no control over). But interestingly, when Dr Loury presses Dr Bessner on the predictive utility of game theory and other foundational theories in economics, he retreats to a position that's easier to defend: the theories do have intellectual merit, but Power played a role in their selection (the "motte").
(2) Selective appeal to "history" as evidence: Throughout the discussion, Dr Bessner frequently rebuts Dr Loury's points by saying something along the lines of: "Where in recent history do we see evidence of that happening?". Then when Dr Loury poses the same question, (paraphrasing) "Where is this utopian, non-capitalistic society", Dr Bessner's response is (paraphrasing) "Nation-states have only been around for 350 years, give it time". Dr Bessner, if you really believe that's a good defense (which it very well may be), then you have to retract all your prior rebuttals where you use the same argument against Dr Loury. Otherwise, you aren't being internally consistent.
(3) Unclear terminology: Dr Bessner's central thesis is that all bad things in the world (poverty, inequality, war, colonialism, environmental waste and destruction) are caused by capitalism. While the argument itself is a bit weak on its face (given all the historical instances of poverty, inequality, war, imperialism, env damage that predate modern capitalism), it would still help if he gave a clear definition of what he means here. My guess is his definition of capitalism is: modern industry & technology, massive corporations, and regulatory capture. If so, he should specify, otherwise his claims are vague and unfalsifiable.
I love the back and forth between Dr Loury and Dr Bessner, and very much appreciate his perspective. I hope he continues to be a guest on the Glenn Show. However, in this discussion specifically, I think it would have helped if he was a bit more consistent and a bit more specific.
Side note: Dr Bessner laments that modern science "fetishizes" quantitative theories. He blames the irrational want for certainty. However, the emphasis on quant could just as easily be explained by the frustration of dealing with unfalsifiable, vaguely defined, internally inconsistent "theories" from historically nonscientific disciplines. Obsessing over certainty might be irrational, but Dr Bessner clear overconfidence in his own discipline (history and political science) seems much more intellectually problematic than the "fetishization" of mathematical theories, who's predictions can actually be empirically tested a priori and are required to be internally consistent. I understand that history is not necessarily aimed at being a science (where predictiveness, consistency, and counterfactual reasoning are), that's totally fine. Taking aim at the quantitative nature of the sciences from the humanities department is throwing stones from a glass house.