by George Stamatis & Antonis Zairis*
The problem, however, lies in how many scientists involved in or influencing economics — and not only economics — perceive Ethics.
If we look at reality from a different perspective through the lens of economics, we may be surprised by the fact that, according to several relevant statistics, the five largest sectors of the global economy in terms of turnover are not measurable business sectors such as energy, trade, industry, tourism, agriculture, or the financial system. Rather, they concern sectors that satisfy “primary” existential human needs.
The first sector worldwide concerns our future while alive — in other words, “fortune”: astrology, numerology, fortune-telling, coffee-cup reading, and similar practices.
The second concerns our ultimate future, the afterlife: religions of every kind and metaphysical horizons.
The third concerns the “challenge” of fortune, namely gambling: casinos, card games, betting, horse racing, and so on.
The fourth concerns the existential reproductive need of sex: prostitution, the erotic industry, pornography, etc.
Finally, the fifth concerns human pleasure derived from all forms of entertainment: cinema, theater, music, dance, show business, horse racing, sports, and so forth.
Irrational Decision-Making
The above constitutes a small yet highly characteristic indication of how irrationally human beings operate in many of their choices. The Nobel Prize-winning economist D. Kahneman reached the same conclusion through his pioneering work (together with A. Tversky) on the mechanisms of decision-making.
Within this framework of adopting irrational judgments, predictions about the future — about tomorrow — become a brilliant field of glory (and money, of course) for many people, including a significant number of scientists.
It is entirely legitimate to publish texts describing life after the recent pandemic. Yet we should reflect on the fact that many of these texts, often expressed with great certainty, come from people who failed to predict the present.
The issue would not be insignificant in any case. However, the fact that many scientists participate in and often assume a leading role in this process is not without consequences for society and the economy.
“Scientific Populism”
The puzzle of irrationality is, of course, vast, and the ties connecting catastrophism, conspiracy theories, and populism are numerous and strong. When this is further linked with “Scientific Populism,” matters become serious for several reasons. The most important among them may be the following:
First, the prestige associated with scientific authority in the eyes of society often leads to the adoption of irrational and scientifically unverified positions and assumptions.
Second, there is the negative influence exerted on people’s choices, attitudes, and behaviors at every level of everyday life (for example, health, nutrition, physical and mental safety, social habits, social discrimination, etc.).
Third, such choices play a significant role in the economy in general, as well as in decisions of an economic nature (consumption, savings, investments, and so forth).
Let us, however, define this phenomenon that we call “Scientific Populism” on three levels.
The first concerns the reasons for its “success.” Scientific Populism:
1 Concerns public appearances, presentations, publications, interviews, videos, and books by scientists within their area of expertise.
2 In many cases, however, it also concerns scientists speaking outside their field, as well as authors, journalists, analysts, and commentators of every kind with significant public recognition.
3 Very often relies on the phenomenon of “sophistry.” Although real facts or scientific data are not necessarily falsified, arbitrary conclusions are drawn without proper scientific observation or experimental/research procedures.
4 Emerges at moments when the public is emotionally receptive and ready to hear and accept what it likes, fears, or hopes for. When this coincides with or follows global crises (economic, environmental, health-related, or humanitarian), its popularity is guaranteed.
5 Is expressed by genuinely talented individuals in storytelling and communication through charming, attractive, often emotional, yet simple and understandable language that touches listeners and readers — especially emotionally.
6 Frequently adopts, on the one hand, an infallible Manichaean model resembling political populism (good versus evil, us versus them, elites versus the people, interests versus society, etc.), and on the other hand, the appropriate dose of rebelliousness, revelation, and resistance against every kind of “establishment” (political, business, scientific, etc.), as well as positions either for or against “political correctness,” depending on the audience.
7 Produces bestselling books and large numbers of loyal followers because it often “validates” or flatters them by adding scientific prestige to their views and supplying them with arguments and new material.
8 Consequently enjoys major commercial success, which in turn generates even greater commercial exploitation and extensive media exposure, since the media have a “keen sense” for whatever “sells.”
9 Relies on the “ultimate” formula for success: easy, quick, and oversimplified scientific knowledge — though more often pseudo-scientific.
10 Fortunately, however, once the “fashion” fades, these bestsellers no longer exert any influence and leave no lasting imprint on the global scientific community. They may provide fame and financial benefits to their advocates, as well as profits to advertisers and publishers, but little more.
The second level concerns the motives of its advocates. In our view, the dominant motives may include (without implying that all apply to everyone): narcissism, popularity, recognition, fame, power, prestige, scientific ego, obsession with promoting and imposing one’s own theories and opinions (sometimes even at a paranoid level), indirect advancement toward scientific or other influential positions, a sense of omniscience (the illusion that because they are important in one field they understand everything), financial gain, and so on.
The third level concerns its purely scientific dimension — namely, frequent appearances in the media and the large number of scientific citations (Google Scholar references). It appears that most scientists characterized by “Scientific Populism” suffer from the “Intellectual Celebrity Syndrome.” What seems to concern them greatly is, first, publicity and visibility on social media, and second, the large number of scientific citations.
The unfortunate reality for many of them is that eight out of the ten most-cited works of all time possess very limited scientific value. The issue, therefore, is whether both their public appearances and their scientific citations are accompanied by substantial scientific contribution. But what if this is not the case and their names are not written in golden letters in scientific history? “In the long run, we are all dead,” as J. M. Keynes wisely remarked. In the present and the near future, however, their communicative “brilliance” and the clever, catchy titles of their publications seem sufficient to fulfill their ambitions — unlike the damage caused to society, the economy, and, over time, to the credibility of science itself.
Predicting the Future
Another important feature of “Scientific Populism” is its temporal focus. Most of its subjects concern the future. Far fewer concern the present, while references to the past are often used merely to lend credibility to future predictions. Such references are frequently detached from their broader historical context and contain logical gaps, chronological leaps, and arbitrary scientific conclusions.
Why, then, the emphasis on the future? We already partially answered this question at the beginning of the article. Who on earth would not wish to predict the future — and to have those predictions align with their hopes, ideas, and beliefs? Ultimately, predicting the future is cost-free. Even when the future becomes the present and predictions are disproven, who really cares then?
These “prophets” are often joined by many “committed intellectuals,” as well as by “intellectual provocateurs” and habitual “dissenters.” Their dominant characteristics are the unveiling of the supposedly “true” terrifying face of technoscience and the strengthening of technophobia — phenomena highlighted by Professor K. Chatzibiros — along with fierce opposition, if not outright hatred, toward the contemporary world. After all, who else could be responsible for all the world’s evils except globalization? And yet, as H. Tsoukas has characteristically remarked, “the fate of ideas is their degeneration once they are transformed into utilitarian ideology.”
Why Does This Happen?
First, history and science have repeatedly demonstrated that predictions are overwhelmingly wrong. Almost always, what N. N. Taleb calls the “Black Swan” appears, bringing what we call the “unexpected future.” If the swan were white, we would already know it. The problem is that it is almost always black.
K. Popper referred to both the futility and the danger of predicting human history. Prediction is possible in matters governed by strict natural laws, but impossible regarding the course of humanity, which is shaped by free will and the unpredictability of human action, according to Professor P. Ioakimidis.
Second, however unbelievable it may seem, the book Factfulness by Hans Rosling, Ola Rosling and Anna Rosling Rönnlund highlights the fact that distinguished scientists and key decision-makers around the world are often unaware of what is truly happening in the world, regardless of how accomplished they may be in their field of expertise. Consequently, when someone has an inaccurate perception of the world, they will inevitably make systematically incorrect assumptions. The explanation given for this phenomenon mainly concerns the way our brain functions.
And what do we know from the science of Psychology? That human beings—perhaps fortunately, though not always—do not think like logical machines. Certainly, they take factual truth into account. At the same time, however, they are also influenced by their previous knowledge and beliefs.
It appears, though, that when people are forced to draw a conclusion, bias in favor of pre-existing beliefs usually prevails over new evidence. This confirms Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of human needs, according to which the need for security, belonging, and affirmation of the ego constitute some of the most significant human needs.
The famous experiment of B. Forer (the Barnum Effect) also explains the broad acceptance of various “metaphysical” systems and methods of predicting the future. According to this experiment, people generally enjoy being flattered and tend to adopt and identify with views and positions they believe concern them personally.
According also to M. Heffernan’s book Uncharted: How to Map the Future Together, human beings are addicted to the need for prediction, as they cannot tolerate uncertainty. Unfortunately—or perhaps fortunately—despite enormous scientific progress, predicting the future with scientific certainty is impossible. In other words, it is impossible to predict the exact place, time, details, and above all the unpredictable event itself.
Of course, one does not need prophetic ability or extensive scientific knowledge to imagine the possible global problems facing our world: the possibility of a pandemic, a world war, a massive environmental disaster, an unforeseen major geological phenomenon, a financial collapse, extreme poverty and, consequently, migration flows resulting from nearly all the above. Who can predict in every detail any of these potential global crises, as well as a new unknown and unforeseen event?
It is self-evident and necessary in every aspect of life—personal, family, social, economic, political—to make budgets, plans, and strategies based on a variety of alternative forecasts.
Here, however, we are not talking about such planning; we are speaking about a manner of “absolute” prediction of the future, characterized by great certainty and an almost total absence of doubt.
Adopting the broader spirit of the philosophical movement known as “Fallibilism,” according to which absolute certainty cannot exist, we consider it scientifically and ethically correct to remain open to all scientific theories, while subjecting them to the test of doubt. It would be useful not to forget that this sense of “doubt” formed the very foundation upon which science was built by the Ancient Greeks.
It is precisely here that criticism of “scientific populism” is grounded.
The Influence of the Internet
Although popular wisdom teaches us that “when man makes plans, God laughs,” a large number of supporters of social media disagree. Perhaps this is why Umberto Eco once stated:
“Social media give legions of idiots the right to speak, whereas before they only spoke at the bar after a glass of wine, without harming society. Then, their nonsense would quickly be silenced, whereas now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It is the invasion of idiots!”
Social media, without negating their value and usefulness in other respects, constitute the main reason why irrationality, misinformation, and “scientific populism” have become so widespread. What does it matter that years ago a study by Cambridge University revealed that 93% of the information circulating on the internet is false, distorted, or inaccurate? The disturbing fact is that pseudoscience is claiming a social role and “scientific populism” is gaining more and more followers.
The Consequences for the Economy
Let us now examine its significant negative consequences for the economy.
The economy, for example, constitutes a complex, unpredictable, constantly shifting, fluid, and entirely dynamic system, since it is related to countless factors, many of which cannot be predicted, such as weather and natural phenomena, pandemics, wars, political developments, and so on. Above all, however, it is connected to the most unpredictable factor of all: the human being.
Greed, ignorance, recklessness, ambition, egoism, ideological obsession, fanaticism, self-interest, indecisiveness, and fear are only a small sample of the emotions capable of decisively influencing economic developments. Let us consider that these same emotions may affect everyone, from the simplest citizen to the most powerful leader.
One of the most important reasons for the failure of predictions stemming from “scientific populism” is that no one can predict or interpret the whole. Unfortunately, many individuals are trapped within their own egotism and either do not wish or are unable to perceive what is happening “here and now” within the context and conditions in which it occurs, without projecting their own version of reality onto it. For these reasons, they are often led by a deterministic view of things, following the logic of cause and effect: “If you do this, then that will happen.”
Globalization and the accelerated development of technology are creating a dynamic landscape of transformations that we experience through both major and minor changes. Compare today with what existed and prevailed ten years ago in any field you choose, and measure the changes. Then note which of them had actually been predicted before occurring. Your list will be almost empty.
These changes will continue at an even faster pace and will remain unpredictable. We can state with certainty that a new world is emerging, one in which everyday life will differ from what we have been accustomed to, and where uncertainty and instability will prevail. While uncertainty always existed in many matters, in the past yesterday generally resembled tomorrow. This will no longer be the case.
We are living through the end of certainty and predictability and entering what is called the “New Normal,” emphasizing the establishment of new rules and tendencies. Professor Spyros Makridakis, regarded as one of the leading experts in forecasting, characteristically notes that “we significantly reduce risk when we reduce the degree of certainty in our forecasts.”
H. Minsky and his school of thought (the so-called post-Keynesians), as well as the liberal economists of the Austrian School, share the same analysis—with the difference that the first group recommends state intervention in order to smooth the economic cycle, while the second believes that such matters should not be left in the hands of public officials.
Although these two schools appear to oppose one another, both emphasize the fundamental uncertainty of reality and stand apart from the mainstream schools of economics, despite having many followers among entrepreneurs and non-academics. It is hardly surprising that this emphasis on fundamental uncertainty disturbs all those who fail in their predictions, as happened in Greece, during the global bubble of 2008, and during the coronavirus crisis in 2020.
We therefore see how much damage can be inflicted on the economy not so much by the irrationality dominating the vast “coffeehouse” of social media, but by “scientific populism.”
Let us list some of these consequences:
Trust in institutions, in Science, in transactions, in reforms, in technology, in online life (e-commerce, remote work and education, etc.), in health regulations (hygiene, medicines, vaccinations, preventive medicine), as well as the adoption of quack remedies.
Unhealthy dietary habits, counterproductive consumer behavior, unjustified boycotts of products and services, and the adoption of false publications or defamatory rumors against businesses and institutions related to the economy.
Effects on savings, transactional ethics, financial trust, the stock market, and sectors of the economy such as tourism, energy, transportation, and industry, as well as strong resistance to entirely safe and socially and economically beneficial public or private projects.
The list is endless and unfortunately touches almost every aspect of economic life.
The Responsibility of Science
Following the “pure reason” of Immanuel Kant, according to whom the human mind is an instrument that transforms the chaotic multiplicity of experience into an orderly unity of thought, we may adopt as our guide for an authentically scientific rather than populist approach what Professor of Philosophy Alexander Nehamas tells us:
“Personal thought without vision is blind; vision without personal thought is empty.”
At this point, the enormous ethical issue of “scientific responsibility” arises.
This responsibility concerns neither the restriction of scientific freedom of expression, nor censorship, nor manipulation. Nor do we identify rationalism with spirituality or individual scientific vision. Rather, this responsibility concerns the three questions that, according to Socrates, every scientist ought to ask.
Confronting “Scientific Populism”
The battle against “scientific populism” will never end. A part of society will always be attracted to it. What, then, do we want and what must we all do?
In extreme cases of “scientific populism,” especially when they exceed the limits of legality and pose a danger to society, there is certainly an adequate legal framework. Yet this is not enough. Vigilance and immediate reaction are also required on the part of the state and the scientific community.
The keys to success in the struggle against “scientific populism” are none other than vigilance, speed, responsibility, and courage.
Based on the above, this struggle rests upon three critical factors:
First, the development of individual responsibility among members of society, so that they may verify the credibility and sources of those promoting “scientific populism.”
Second, the information and education of citizens so that they may think critically and adopt a stance of evaluating the reliability of information.
Third—and perhaps most importantly—the adoption of the “keys” of vigilance, speed, responsibility, and courage by organizations and institutions representing the economy, civil society, and the scientific community itself, in order to confront promptly, decisively, and effectively the challenges of “scientific populism,” placing great emphasis on public discourse.
Conclusions
First, the fact that someone is a scientist does not mean they are not human, with virtues and flaws.
Second, scientific authority possesses tremendous power to influence people either positively or negatively.
Third, because life has greater imagination than we do, the future is usually better than we fear and worse than we imagine.
Fourth, for all the above reasons, we all bear tremendous responsibility to stand courageously against the phenomenon of “scientific populism,” especially during periods of major crises such as the present one.
*George Stamatis, Communications Consultant & Antonis Zairis, University Professor
By: N. Peter Kramer
