The Keynes-Hayek Showdown
“The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them.” - William Lawrence Bragg The heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes- an openness to new ideas, no matter how strange they may be, and the other is to be skeptical of all ideas, old and new. Theories in the sciences are built around hypotheses that are supported with evidence, and that corresponds to and is coherent with current knowledge. Most importantly, theories in the sciences must, by nature be able to be falsified. Theories by definition can never be proven completely right; at best, they can stay untouched by arguments of the opposition. As a result, throughout history,
…show more content…
Disagreements may result in new research or it may be in the form of new ideas or perspectives. Due to the experiments not easily replicated in the human sciences, it is common to come up with alternatives points of views. So, the pursuit of knowledge can be aided by new views and theories as a disagreement to earlier views. Emotion and culture can elicit disagreement. This is more important in human science than natural science. People have different ways of viewing development. The two main economic disagreements include Keynesian economics and free-market economics by Hayek. The Keynes-Hayek Showdown has been popular in response to government involvement in the economy. Economists in different countries and within a same country often disagree about the correct method to deal with economic problems. Government and politics when they disagree, they will try to come up with different solutions. The new solution represents new knowledge developed in order to further …show more content…
At some point, an agreement is required to allow conflicting theories to be put to rest in order to move on and pursue further knowledge of other subjects. Otherwise, researchers may not know which direction they should take and may end up confused with what to do. With too many disagreements, anomalies occur in the development of research and become questionable evidence. Additionally, science regulations would become strict since there is no agreement, which allows us to disregard all “accepted” knowledge in the sciences. The challenges of disagreement are the inability to believe theories presented to us since they are so frequently disagreed on. Too many alternative views can end up muddying the situation. Sometimes, much progress in the pursuit of knowledge can be achieved when we agree, then we can proceed much faster in the pursuit of knowledge. In most cases, it does not advance knowledge but restrict it from developing into something much
Disagreements may result in new research or it may be in the form of new ideas or perspectives. Due to the experiments not easily replicated in the human sciences, it is common to come up with alternatives points of views. So, the pursuit of knowledge can be aided by new views and theories as a disagreement to earlier views. Emotion and culture can elicit disagreement. This is more important in human science than natural science. People have different ways of viewing development. The two main economic disagreements include Keynesian economics and free-market economics by Hayek. The Keynes-Hayek Showdown has been popular in response to government involvement in the economy. Economists in different countries and within a same country often disagree about the correct method to deal with economic problems. Government and politics when they disagree, they will try to come up with different solutions. The new solution represents new knowledge developed in order to further …show more content…
At some point, an agreement is required to allow conflicting theories to be put to rest in order to move on and pursue further knowledge of other subjects. Otherwise, researchers may not know which direction they should take and may end up confused with what to do. With too many disagreements, anomalies occur in the development of research and become questionable evidence. Additionally, science regulations would become strict since there is no agreement, which allows us to disregard all “accepted” knowledge in the sciences. The challenges of disagreement are the inability to believe theories presented to us since they are so frequently disagreed on. Too many alternative views can end up muddying the situation. Sometimes, much progress in the pursuit of knowledge can be achieved when we agree, then we can proceed much faster in the pursuit of knowledge. In most cases, it does not advance knowledge but restrict it from developing into something much