Economics, Psychology, and the Good Life
DISCUSSED BY:
J D. Trout (Loyola University Chicago)
Wade Hands (University of Puget Sound)
Moderated by
Uskali Mäki (Academy professor, University of Helsinki)
TOPIC OF THE SESSION:
There is a growing external pressure on scientific inquiry to produce output that has practical relevance. The academic community is divided as to what kinds of services science, given its nature, is able and willing to provide to the wider society and its parts – especially in response to short-term commercial and political interests. Yet all of science might be expected to willingly contribute to a shared grand goal, that of promoting good human life. Naturally, each discipline will relate to this goal in its characteristic unique manner, in a way that derives from its specific perspective to the world and its capacities in addressing aspects of the broad range of issues of good life. In this AID session Wade Hands (economic theory, history of economics and philosophy of economics) and J.D. Trout (philosophy and psychology) discuss how the disciplines of economics and psychology can (or cannot) help promote the good life.
QUESTIONS:
Is science about truth, or is it about the good? This double goal for philosophers was set as far back as Plato and Aristotle but what are your thoughts on the matter today? What do you think is the mainstream position on this issue in the disciplines of economics and psychology?
Concretely, can you give one representative example of how you think the two disciplines have provided – or attempt to provide -- an improvement in the human condition?
Can scientific disciplines like psychology and economics improve the human condition in isolation from one another, or should they somehow work together? Can they function better in a disciplinary or in an interdisciplinary manner? Given that their disciplinary conventions are quite different, are they able to join forces?
Can science really provide insights into how to improve policies, institutions, and technology, or can it just provide value-neutral tools, which the users (whoever they are) will then put to good or bad use independently of the intentions of science and scientists?
Who are those users (governments, businesses, local communities, NGOs…), and how do they define and promote what we call “good life”? What issues arise here, especially given that those users may not be entirely uniform in their interests and perceptions?
For further information, please contact
joonas.ottman@helsinki.fi.<$DetailsLisatietojaLinkki$>
<$DetailsTakaisinHakutuloksiin$>