PORTES MEETS GOVE FEATURE Gove’s conclusion was that it is wrong to use


the reported opinion of any organisation, however prestigious, as a way of closing down an argument. The hard sciences work by means of evidence and experiment, and this explains their success. By contrast, thinks Gove, the social sciences are subject to chronic groupthink and error. Some insiders obviously agree with him. He praised current attempts to drag the social sciences out of their comfort zone, such as the Heterodox Academy in the US. Its aim is to counteract the centre-left mindset of much American academic thinking. As Gove sees it, “the dissident voice is necessary for mankind to advance.” And as he said: “If you are going to leave it to the experts, why have a democracy?” The track record of putting experts in charge of policy, without the external brake of democratic opinion, is in his view a miserable one. In discussion, the two speakers decided that red onions were the case study they needed to make their point. For Portes, economics has now got to the point where it can predict how much sales will fall if the price of red onions is doubled in the shops. It can even foretell how far sales of other onions will rise at the same time. But for Gove, things are not quite that simple. If red onions are seen as more chic when they cost more, sales might go up. And as he said, people have an “economic identity” which leads them to do things economics might have trouble understanding, such as buying British goods in favour of cheaper foreign ones.


social media also allow people to avoid any opinions they do not agree with. This expands the scope for confirmation bias, said Gove, He added that old- fashioned printed newspapers are at least part of the answer to escaping monocultural information silos. Despite chair Julia Hartley-Brewer’s attempt to avoid restaging the Brexit debate, the issue is one that will not go away for anyone discussing rival views of the UK economy. Gove was especially dismissive of the CBI, a strong Remain supporter, asking where it got its money and how it ensured that it was representing the views of UK companies. He also pointed out that another economic think tank, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, had published a report downplaying the possible effects of Brexit which received far less attention than some starker warnings of the outlook. At the same time, Portes and Gove agreed that it is important to treat some pronouncements from apparently neutral economics thinktanks with care. While they may hire clever economists, some are run by politicians with their own agenda. Gove cited the IMF, run by French politician Christine Lagarde, as a prime case in point.


“ ”


Gove added that the complexities of onion economics stress the importance of debating complex issues with a wide range of experts. Two stars of his own political firmament, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, loved debating, he said, and this enthusiasm led them to make better decisions. Portes agreed, but added that the pressure of contemporary politics now makes this active engagement harder for politicians to manage. In the audience question and answer,


both speakers were asked just what difference contemporary technology makes to these issues. We now have all the world’s knowledge literally at our fingertips, and Portes welcomes the instant fact-checking and debate that it allows. However,


As Gove sees it, the dissident


voice is necessary for mankind to advance


In any case, said Portes, these much-criticised economic forecasts are only one small corner of the economics profession. Economists are more likely to be found looking at issues like the effects of rail regulation, or how to design welfare-to-work programmes that achieve their intended effects, than at the 10-year outlook for UK plc. The final question was from a journalist in the audience who asked Michael Gove if he stood by his original statement that we should not listen to experts. His response was to accuse her of the confirmation bias of which he had complained earlier, saying that she had only paid attention to the facts in this matter that suited her case. In fact, said Gove, he has always tried to gather evidence from a wide range of sources to form his views. He ended with a stirring denouncement of the


Neanderthal representation of Brexit voters in much of the media, saying that they had strong arguments for their beliefs, including the downward pressure on wages caused by some immigration. “Each vote has equal value, whether the voter has a PhD or left school at 15,” as he put it, a sentiment with which Portes could only agree. As he said, the lesson on this debate for experts such as him is that they need to ask how they can recognise the limits of their knowledge, and explore how to get it across better to inform public debate. n


i


To watch a video of the debate, see: www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/2017/03/15/watch-live-michael-gove-goes-head-head- academic-debate-value/


SOCIETY NOW SUMMER 2017 23


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32