[Fertionbratte]

In the thread on the gold dinar and the Murabitun model for its implementation, our brother Abu Hajira suggested that we ought to have a scientific model, data, and scientific methods of analysing whether it would be successful or not. To pursue that in the section on the dinar would probably test contributors' patience to the limit so it occurred to me to start a new thread just for those who have an interest in this matter.

Scientific modelling is intrinsically a flawed process and. In the case of economics, it is a pseudo-scientific discipline based on entirely false premises.

Economics as a discipline grows out of the utilitarian branch of philosophy which is explicitly atheistical. This was perhaps an unanticipated consequence of the 'scientific' view of causality propounded by Newton et al, since once it was established (in their view) that the universe is completely explicable in terms of interactions between the entities within it, then people quickly concluded, as did Laplace when asked by Napoleon why his book Celestial Mechanics had no mention of the Creator, "Monsieur, I had no need of this hypothesis."

Even when science and economics nominally accept some form of theism, they are against revealed law in any form. In either case, Bentham's 1787 "Defence of Usury" http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/bentham/usury is entirely typical of the genre of philosophical works on economics in being a complete repudiation of even that tiny shred of shariah left to the Christians and Jews.

That is something specifically about economics, but the problem is wider and deeper than that. Science since Galileo, Descartes, and Newton is the attempt to build an alternative route to certainty. That attempt is based on the infatuation that people of the epoch had with Euclid. They admired Euclid's proving all his propositions, and thought that it would be possible to build a philosophy and science on the same basis. This proposed route to a kind of quasi-religious certainty was based on:
1. definition of terms,
2. axiomatic statements which are 'self-evident' and need no proof,
3. hypotheses which are tentative proposals which when given a
4. proof
then become
5. theorems.
This is completely a mathematical process and it totally restructured philosophy and its child science. The trouble was that whereas in mathematics we are dealing with very simple matters such as points, lines, areas, volumes, in any other discipline we are dealing with very many complex matters, which are hard to define, and whose axioms, i.e. the things which are self-evident, are not necessarily self-evident to all people involved, and moreover many implicit assumptions can dog careful thinking. It worked admirably well with Newton for the two-body problem such as the sun and a single planet, but it has not been made to work for the three-body problem, which is much more complex.

Usually the definitions of the terms and the axioms are so prejudiced in anything outside of the zone of mathematics as to be useless. Moreover, even in mathematics itself, the entire edifice was shown to be completely flawed, something which was a major crisis in the history of the subject (see: Morris Kline, Mathematics: the Loss of Certainty).

Famously, people like John von Neuman and the contemporary mathematician John Nash (subject of the Hollywood film "A Beautiful Mind", which unfortunately is not accurate biographically), two proponents of Game Theory and its application to economics, assumed that people are intrinsically selfish and uncooperative, but this is demonstrably not necessarily the case (see Adam Curtis's excellent documentary "The Trap" for some material about that), yet it had the terrible result of bringing about the selfish society comprised of selfish individuals that was postulated at the outset. It was self-fulfilling, as is much of science. One just has to remember that quantum mechanics grew out of, among other things, the astonishing discovery that if you set up the experiment to look at light (or electrons) as particles, they will behave as particles, but if you set up the experiment to treat them as wave-forms, they behave as waves.

Interestingly the entire rise of science parallels the rise of usury finance: Galileo designed a slide rule to work out compound interest for his patrons the Italian Medici banking family, and Newton was master of the Mint setting in 1717 for the first time ever the price of paper money vis-a-vis gold (wrongly thought of as setting the price of gold).

Keynes was an ardent Newtonian, and then of course we have von Neuman and Nash and the Chaos theorists. The relationship between science and usury finance is stronger than ever.



Abdassamad Clarke

[actrisski]

I am reading my degree in Economics!

Economics is good at model making and trying to make sense of reality through them but, a model is a model. It is highly simplified and it can be tweaked in order to produce the desired result.

Economists are like prostitutes, you pay them enough money and they'll prove anything.

The fact on the dinar is simple. First lets get the principles down first. Then we can model and play around with numbers all day long.

The world is more complicated that an abstract Economics textbook. Though I must admit I do like studying it though.

[panholio]

What do you think of David Ricardo?

[Keyclenef]

What do you think of David Ricardo?

Have no knowledge of him. I was a mathematician and physicist, but not an economist. Is he interesting?




Abdassamad Clarke

[Junrlaeh]

He's got some interesting arguments on Rent, Wages, Prices etc. This may border or be included in your territory (dinar/dirham)

I suggest you should read some of his works. I think It'll help you in your endevour.

[prmwsinfo]

He's got some interesting arguments on Rent, Wages, Prices etc. This may border or be included in your territory (dinar/dirham)

I suggest you should read some of his works. I think It'll help you in your endevour.

I will look him out insha'Allah. I suspect though that it needs a figure such as in mathematics which had its Gödel and physics its Heisenberg.



Abdassamad Clarke

[arriplify]

Ricardo is a bit different from conventional economists.

[nannysuetle]

MashAllah I will learn massive here inshAllah

But I was under the perception you were going to give the analytical tools which murabitun uses for the dinaar project and not what westerner study..

I mean, you have already said that all these economic models are flawed.. so what model are you using for the dinar project.. what are the perimeters and terms.. This request of min is indeed in all honesty and sincerety that perhaps through your model I might understand what I couldnt in other discussions..

[hotsaucemidl]

Interesting...

[LongaDonga]

MashAllah I will learn massive here inshAllah

But I was under the perception you were going to give the analytical tools which murabitun uses for the dinaar project and not what westerner study..

I mean, you have already said that all these economic models are flawed.. so what model are you using for the dinar project.. what are the perimeters and terms.. This request of min is indeed in all honesty and sincerety that perhaps through your model I might understand what I couldnt in other discussions..

First, this is not the thread for that matter of the dinar, but this is a separate thread on science, and particularly but not exclusively the science of economics. I suggest we keep it quite separate from the Dinar thread.

Second, why do you not then take the text of Umar's book, a paragraph at a time, and post it in the dinar section, and then you can ask specific questions about it? You can take and paste whatever you wish and we can examine it.



Abdassamad Clarke

[BriKevin]

I will look him out insha'Allah. I suspect though that it needs a figure such as in mathematics which had its Gödel and physics its Heisenberg.



Abdassamad Clarke

There are only a couple of figures like this in economics that I can think of: RH Tawney and EF Schumacher, Schumacher being my preference. Unsurprisingly Schumacher is now generally ignored, though he has a couple of superb books, one is "Small is Beautiful". There's another, the name of which escapes me currently.

Ricardo is problematic, though his works are or crucial importance to understand modern economics. His ideas on comparative advantage might be true in principle but have led to some very static and damaging ideas on how trade should be conducted; of course what happened after his death as a result of people building upon his work, or misrepresenting it, isn't his fault, but it's a sign of how detached economists, and (social) scientists in general are from any grand narratives - instead focussing on their own fields without any sense or knowledge of context or morality.

Sidi Abdassamad - we once had a brief discussion on the old Maliki-fiqh forum about the gold standard; you emailed me an article about it by the former US Fed chairman, very interesting, thank-you. Economics as a modern discipline may well be atheistic in its origins, but it doesn't necessarily have to be - Ibn Khaldun and Imam Ghazali, amongst others, are of the early scholars that considered economic issues.

[veizKinquiz]

There are only a couple of figures like this in economics that I can think of: RH Tawney and EF Schumacher, Schumacher being my preference. Unsurprisingly Schumacher is now generally ignored, though he has a couple of superb books, one is "Small is Beautiful". There's another, the name of which escapes me currently.

Ricardo is problematic, though his works are or crucial importance to understand modern economics. His ideas on comparative advantage might be true in principle but have led to some very static and damaging ideas on how trade should be conducted; of course what happened after his death as a result of people building upon his work, or misrepresenting it, isn't his fault, but it's a sign of how detached economists, and (social) scientists in general are from any grand narratives - instead focussing on their own fields without any sense or knowledge of context or morality.

Sidi Abdassamad - we once had a brief discussion on the old Maliki-fiqh forum about the gold standard; you emailed me an article about it by the former US Fed chairman, very interesting, thank-you. Economics as a modern discipline may well be atheistic in its origins, but it doesn't necessarily have to be - Ibn Khaldun and Imam Ghazali, amongst others, are of the early scholars that considered economic issues.

Thank you for this. Tawney I know from his wonderful book Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, which I would consider absolutely fundamental for anyone going into this area. I remember reading Schumacher many years ago, but very little has remained with me from that time.

Am absolutely not averse to discussing economic ideas, but my interest as a mathematician is in the rise of the modern 'scientific' approach to knowledge in general and towards economics in particular. Have been reading a great deal in the history and philosophy of science, because it has become the theology of a new religion and thus it worries me a great deal when people, particularly Muslims, evoke science as some unalterable arbiter.

Nice to hear from you again.




Abdassamad Clarke

[Hdzcxqoi]

Respected Shaykh,

Thank you for this beneficial post. It was the sort of thing that I've been looking for for quite a while.

Science has truly become a religion to some.

Please keep sharing insha'allah.

[Louthcoombutt]

Respected Shaykh,

Thank you for this beneficial post. It was the sort of thing that I've been looking for for quite a while.

Science has truly become a religion to some.

Please keep sharing insha'allah.

Thank you for your appreciation. Have been looking for interested people who might find such material useful for some time.



Abdassamad Clarke

[bxxasxxa]

This http://www.bogvaerker.dk/axioms.html develops the above ideas more fully.



Abdassamad

[halyshitzob]

Thank you for this. Tawney I know from his wonderful book Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, which I would consider absolutely fundamental for anyone going into this area. I remember reading Schumacher many years ago, but very little has remained with me from that time.

Am absolutely not averse to discussing economic ideas, but my interest as a mathematician is in the rise of the modern 'scientific' approach to knowledge in general and towards economics in particular. Have been reading a great deal in the history and philosophy of science, because it has become the theology of a new religion and thus it worries me a great deal when people, particularly Muslims, evoke science as some unalterable arbiter.

Nice to hear from you again.




Abdassamad Clarke

Interesting! I'm planning on doing a module next semester on the history of economics and economic thought; it's something I've been trying to get into for a while. Anny suggested reading you have would be appreciated. I think there's a very strong link between economic theory and the behaviour of people which is quite intangible - I'm certain that, to some degree, modelled economic principles affect the way people think in a sort of "does art resemble life, or life resemble art" paradox. An example of this might be: why do we personify the economy? Discuss it as being weak, strong, healthy or otherwise; and when did the economy, however defined, become more important than welfare or morality?

[Xavier_Spinner_Wheels]

Interesting! I'm planning on doing a module next semester on the history of economics and economic thought; it's something I've been trying to get into for a while. Anny suggested reading you have would be appreciated. I think there's a very strong link between economic theory and the behaviour of people which is quite intangible - I'm certain that, to some degree, modelled economic principles affect the way people think in a sort of "does art resemble life, or life resemble art" paradox. An example of this might be: why do we personify the economy? Discuss it as being weak, strong, healthy or otherwise; and when did the economy, however defined, become more important than welfare or morality?

In my youth the economy and matters such as the stock market and the health of any currency were never 'news', and did not even come at the tail end of the News.

Cannot recommend too highly many of Adam Curtis documentaries, many of which are on Google Video and YouTube. Very interesting on economic theory and mathematics and how they impinge on society, and his Century of Self on psychoanalysis and its effect on state and commerce is wonderful.

Curtis shows that mathematical theories (Game Theory) which posited entirely selfish motivation in people just in order to have something on which to base a model and which were demonstrated at that time as being false in their assumptions, nevertheless when applied by state to governance have produced exactly such a selfish society with selfish individuals.

Interestingly, his last fine documentary "The Trap" on our false ideas of freedom, falls down in last episode, simply I believe because it must fall to Muslims to articulate the truth of freedom.

See The Mayfair Set if you can, but almost everything he has done is very good.



Abdassamad Clarke

[highattainlet]

Interesting! I'm planning on doing a module next semester on the history of economics and economic thought; it's something I've been trying to get into for a while. Anny suggested reading you have would be appreciated. I think there's a very strong link between economic theory and the behaviour of people which is quite intangible - I'm certain that, to some degree, modelled economic principles affect the way people think in a sort of "does art resemble life, or life resemble art" paradox. An example of this might be: why do we personify the economy? Discuss it as being weak, strong, healthy or otherwise; and when did the economy, however defined, become more important than welfare or morality?

Personally, I get more out of some biographical and historical works than out of plain economics books. For examples, I would highly recommend:
The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance by Paul Strathern.
Here you see that the Renaissance was actually due to the philanthropy of one very wealthy man with a very guilty conscience because he knew that usury is a mortal sin, and he was banker to the pope (and some of his descendants were popes), head of the church whose doctrine at that time was still that usury is a mortal sin. Their proteges included Michaelangelo, Leanardo da Vinci, Galileo and many more.

But it is clear the author meant 'godfathers' also in the Al Pacino sense. Thugs, but then it was an age of thugs. A very Italian story.




Abdassamad Clarke

[Rtebydou]

Brother Abdassamed could I take your email add down or point me to a place where I could get it from. Its just that you might get banned or you might decide to leave! So I still want to be able to contact you, if you don't mind.

Also could you take a look at this thread:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24921

I want to get your take.

[Suentiend]

Brother Abdassamed could I take your email add down or point me to a place where I could get it from. Its just that you might get banned or you might decide to leave! So I still want to be able to contact you, if you don't mind.

Also could you take a look at this thread:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24921

I want to get your take.

Sidi,

Perhaps a half or more of my effort here is to restrain my natural combativeness and aggression, so I do hope that I will not be banned insha'Allah. But leave I might well do, since it takes a great deal of precious time.

As to the thread, I cannot access it, and got this message:

$bbuserinfo[username], you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons



Perhaps you could post whatever it is to me.
There is an email address on my website http://www.bogvaerker.dk.



Abdassamad Clarke