La Pretensión del Conocimiento

Por Friedrich August von Hayek‏. (English).


La ocasión particular de esta conferencia, combinada con el principal problema práctico que afrontan hoy los economistas, ha vuelto casi inevitable la selección de este tema. Por una parte, el establecimiento aún reciente del Premio Nobel en Economía marca un punto importante del proceso por el cual, en la opinión pública, la economía ha recibido la dignidad y el prestigio de las ciencias físicas. Por la otra, se está pidiendo ahora a los economistas que expliquen cómo el mundo libre podrá librarse de la grave amenaza de la inflación acelerada, una amenaza creada -debemos admitirlo- por las políticas recomendadas y aun aconsejadas a los gobiernos por la mayoría de los economistas. En efecto, tenemos escasas razones para sentirnos orgullosos: como profesionales hemos enredado las cosas.

Me parece que esta incapacidad de los economistas para guiar la política económica con mayor fortuna se liga estrechamente a su inclinación a limitar en la mayor medida posible los procedimientos de las ciencias físicas que han alcanzado éxitos tan brillantes, un intento que en nuestro campo puede conducir directamente al fracaso. Es este un enfoque que se ha descrito como la actitud "científica" y que en realidad, como lo definí hace cerca de treinta años, "es decididamente anticientífica en el verdadero sentido del término, ya que implica una aplicación mecánica y nada crítica de hábitos de pensamiento a campos distintos de aquellos en que tales hábitos se han formado". Ahora quiero empezar por explicar cómo algunos de los errores más graves de la política económica reciente son una consecuencia directa de este error científico.


La teoría que ha venido guiando la política monetaria y financiera durante los últimos treinta años, y que en mi opinión proviene en gran medida de esa concepción errónea del procedimiento científicamente adecuado, consiste en la afirmación de que existe una correlación positiva simple entre el empleo total y la magnitud de la demanda agregada de bienes y servicios; ello conduce a la creencia de que podemos asegurar permanentemente el empleo pleno manteniendo a un nivel adecuado el gasto monetario total. Entre las diversas teorías propuestas para explicar el gran nivel de desempleo esta es probablemente la única a cuyo favor pueden aducirse fuertes pruebas cuantitativas. Sin embargo, yo considero esta teoría fundamentalmente falsa, y creo muy peligrosa la actuación basada en ella, como ahora ocurre.

Esto me lleva a la cuestión fundamental. Al revés de lo que ocurre en las ciencias físicas, en la economía y otras disciplinas que se ocupan esencialmente de fenómenos complejos, los aspectos de los hechos que deben explicarse, acerca de los cuales podemos obtener datos cuantitativos son necesariamente limitados y pueden no incluir los más importantes. Mientras en las ciencias físicas se supone generalmente, quizá con razón, que todo factor importante que determina los hechos observados podrá ser directamente observable y medible, en el estudio de fenómenos tan complejos como el mercado, que depende de las acciones de muchos individuos, es muy improbable que puedan conocerse o medirse por completo todas las circunstancias que determinarán el resultado de un proceso, por razones que explicaré más tarde. y mientras que en las ciencias físicas el investigador podrá medir lo que considera importante de acuerdo con una teoría previa, en las ciencias sociales se trata a menudo como importante lo que resulte ser accesible a la medición. Esto se lleva en ocasiones hasta el punto de que se exija que nuestras teorías se formulen en términos tales que se refieran sólo a magnitudes medibles.

Seguir leyendo en eumed.

The social animal by David Brooks

Vía Arcadi Espada.

The Pretence of Knowledge by Friedrich August von Hayek‏

Prize Lecture.

Lecture to the memory of Alfred Nobel, December 11, 1974

Extracts:

It has, of course, to be readily admitted that the kind of theory which I regard as the true explanation of unemployment is a theory of somewhat limited content because it allows us to make only very general predictions of the kind of events which we must expect in a given situation. But the effects on policy of the more ambitious constructions have not been very fortunate and I confess that I prefer true but imperfect knowledge, even if it leaves much indetermined and unpredictable, to a pretence of exact knowledge that is likely to be false. The credit which the apparent conformity with recognized scientific standards can gain for seemingly simple but false theories may, as the present instance shows, have grave consequences.

… What I mainly wanted to bring out by the topical illustration is that certainly in my field, but I believe also generally in the sciences of man, what looks superficially like the most scientific procedure is often the most unscientific, and, beyond this, that in these fields there are definite limits to what we can expect science to achieve. This means that to entrust to science - or to deliberate control according to scientific principles - more than scientific method can achieve may have deplorable effects… It is indeed true that, in contrast to the exhilaration which the discoveries of the physical sciences tend to produce, the insights which we gain from the study of society more often have a dampening effect on our aspirations; and it is perhaps not surprising that the more impetuous younger members of our profession are not always prepared to accept this. Yet the confidence in the unlimited power of science is only too often based on a false belief that the scientific method consists in the application of a ready-made technique, or in imitating the form rather than the substance of scientific procedure, as if one needed only to follow some cooking recipes to solve all social problems. It sometimes almost seems as if the techniques of science were more easily learnt than the thinking that shows us what the problems are and how to approach them.

The conflict between what in its present mood the public expects science to achieve in satisfaction of popular hopes and what is really in its power is a serious matter because, even if the true scientists should all recognize the limitations of what they can do in the field of human affairs, so long as the public expects more there will always be some who will pretend, and perhaps honestly believe, that they can do more to meet popular demands than is really in their power. It is often difficult enough for the expert, and certainly in many instances impossible for the layman, to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate claims advanced in the name of science.

There are some special problems, however, in connection with those essentially complex phenomena of which social structures are so important an instance, which make me wish to restate in conclusion in more general terms the reasons why in these fields not only are there only absolute obstacles to the prediction of specific events, but why to act as if we possessed scientific knowledge enabling us to transcend them may itself become a serious obstacle to the advance of the human intellect.

The chief point we must remember is that the great and rapid advance of the physical sciences took place in fields where it proved that explanation and prediction could be based on laws which accounted for the observed phenomena as functions of comparatively few variables - either particular facts or relative frequencies of events. This may even be the ultimate reason why we single out these realms as "physical" in contrast to those more highly organized structures which I have here called essentially complex phenomena. There is no reason why the position must be the same in the latter as in the former fields. The difficulties which we encounter in the latter are not, as one might at first suspect, difficulties about formulating theories for the explanation of the observed events - although they cause also special difficulties about testing proposed explanations and therefore about eliminating bad theories. They are due to the chief problem which arises when we apply our theories to any particular situation in the real world. A theory of essentially complex phenomena must refer to a large number of particular facts; and to derive a prediction from it, or to test it, we have to ascertain all these particular facts. Once we succeeded in this there should be no particular difficulty about deriving testable predictions - with the help of modern computers it should be easy enough to insert these data into the appropriate blanks of the theoretical formulae and to derive a prediction. The real difficulty, to the solution of which science has little to contribute, and which is sometimes indeed insoluble, consists in the ascertainment of the particular facts.

A simple example will show the nature of this difficulty. Consider some ball game played by a few people of approximately equal skill. If we knew a few particular facts in addition to our general knowledge of the ability of the individual players, such as their state of attention, their perceptions and the state of their hearts, lungs, muscles etc. at each moment of the game, we could probably predict the outcome. Indeed, if we were familiar both with the game and the teams we should probably have a fairly shrewd idea on what the outcome will depend. But we shall of course not be able to ascertain those facts and in consequence the result of the game will be outside the range of the scientifically predictable, however well we may know what effects particular events would have on the result of the game. This does not mean that we can make no predictions at all about the course of such a game. If we know the rules of the different games we shall, in watching one, very soon know which game is being played and what kinds of actions we can expect and what kind not. But our capacity to predict will be confined to such general characteristics of the events to be expected and not include the capacity of predicting particular individual events.

The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men's fatal striving to control society - a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.