Getting over naïve scientism c. 1950: what Fogel and North got wrong

Abstract

Fogel and North, both of them old radicals in the 1950s, received the Nobel Memorial Prize in 1993 for their advocacy—and practice—during the 1960s and 1970s of quantitative methods and especially of basic economic thinking in the study of the economic past. Both were scientific giants, and great teachers and advocates. But even giants make mistakes, and in both cases the mistakes became more evident in the decades after they received the glittering prize. Fogel’s late-career studies of health and welfare, though admirably serious examples of applied economics right to the end, were less scientifically pioneering than his work on railways or slavery. North’s much more influential advocacy—and very much less his practice—of neo-institutionalism, by contrast, was probably a scientific error. Fogel realized more and more the salience of ethics in the economy, and even taught (philosophically unsophisticated) courses on business ethics. North drifted further and further from the essentially ethical underpinnings of an innovative economy, speaking of “brain science” rather than the mind-scanning equipment of the humanities, and led his many followers in the drift.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Quoted in Niels Bohr: Reflections on Subject and Object (2001) by Paul McEvoy, p. 291. The provenance of the remark is a little hazy, but it is well known. In Danish, the philosopher Hans Siggaard Jensen informs me, it was something like “Fysik er ikke om hvordan verden er, men om hvad vi kan sige om den.”

  2. 2.

    Am Anfang/war das Wort/und das Wort/war bei Gott/Und Gott gab uns das Wort/und wir wohnten/im Wort/Und das Wort ist unser Traum/und der Traum ist unser Leben (Bower 2000).

References

  1. American Statistical Association (2016) Statement on statistical significance and p-values. Am Stat 70(2):129–133. At http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108

  2. Becker G, Stigler G (1977) De gustibus non est disputandum. Am Econ Rev 67:67–90

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bower KM (2000) Ethics and remembrance: the poetry of Nelly Sachs and Rose Ausländer. Camden House, Rochester

    Google Scholar 

  4. Campbell B (2006) English seigneurial agriculture, 125–1450. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  5. Collins H (1985) Changing order: replication and induction in scientific practice. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cornell Alumni Magazine (2008) On fogel, vol 110, no 5, March/April 2008

  7. Diebolt C, Haupert M (2018) A cliometric counterfactual: what if there had been neither Fogel nor North? In this issue of Cliometrica

  8. Horgan J (1996) The end of science: facing the limits of knowledge in the twilight of the scientific age. Helix Books, Addison Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  9. Housman AE (1921) The application of thought to textual criticism. Proc Class Assoc 18:67–84

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kuhn TS (1977) The essential tension: selected studies in scientific tradition and change. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lakatos I 1976 (1963–1964). Proofs and refutations: the logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  13. Latour B, Woolgar S (1979) Laboratory life. Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

  14. Leonard TC (2016) Illiberal reformers: race, eugenics and American economics in the progressive era. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  15. Marvell A (1681) The garden. At https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/44682

  16. McCloskey DN (1985) The problem of audience in historical economics: rhetorical thoughts on a text by Robert Fogel. Hist Theory 24(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. McCloskey DN (2012) Happyism: the creepy new economics of pleasure. The New Republic, June 28, 2012

  18. McCloskey DN (2017) Neo-institutionalism is not yet a scientific sucess: a reply to Barry Weingast. Scand Econ Hist Rev, forthcoming

  19. North DC (1991) Institutions. J Econ Perspect 5(1):97–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. North DC (2005) Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton economic history of the western world. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  21. North DC, Wallis JJ, Weingast BR (2009) Violence and social orders: a conceptual framework for interpreting recorded history. Cambridge University Press, New York

  22. Pearson K, Moul M (1925) The problem of alien immigration into Great Britain illustrated by an examination of Russian and Polish Alien children. Ann Eugen Pt. I, 1(1): 5–54; Pt. II, 1(2): 56–127

  23. Polanyi M (1958) Personal knowledge: towards and post-critical philosophy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pope A (1711) An essay on criticism. Printed for W. Lewis and sold by W. Taylor, T. Osborn and J. Graves, 1711, London

  25. Seaton J (1996) Cultural conservatism: political liberalism: from criticism to cultural studies. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, p 1996

    Google Scholar 

  26. Trilling L (1950) The liberal imagination: essays on literature and society. Viking Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wallis J, North DC (1986) Measuring the transactions sector in the American economy. In: Engerman S, Gallman R (eds) Long-term factors in American economic growth. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  28. Weingast B (2016) Exposing the neoclassical fallacy: McCloskey on ideas and the great enrichment. Scand Econ Hist Rev 64(3):189–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wilson EO (1992) The diversity of life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deirdre Nansen McCloskey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McCloskey, D.N. Getting over naïve scientism c. 1950: what Fogel and North got wrong. Cliometrica 12, 435–449 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11698-017-0168-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Robert Fogel
  • Douglass North
  • Cliometrics
  • Science
  • Humanities

JEL Classification

  • B2
  • B3
  • N0