For a collection of related articles, see Social Sciences: Islamic Approach
This page is now obsolete; for main page, see Deification of Science
Latest Version is: Deification of Science and Its Disastrous Consequences [submitted to AJISS in April 2013]
A new paper which advances the argument (but omits a lot of material from previous versions) is called: An Islamic Approach to Humanities. As far as I can see, all relevant arguments from FOUR FLAWS IN ECON METHODOLOGY have been incorporated in this last paper; if so, this previous version should be deleted.
The Myth of the Flat Earth was invented to vilify Christianity
Simpler article with similar theme is: Directions for Muslim Scholars in Social Sciences.
OLDER VERSION IS ATTACHED to bottom of page. Incomplete Draft. Earlier versions and alternatives are discussed below.
alternative draft of Deification of Science is attached to page on: Differentiation Math & Sc ience: Towards a New Methodology for Economics.
One of the ideas is ON that page, two ideas which are more closely related to THIS one (deification) are listed below. Each has been treated in the draft and could be worked up into separate papers.
1: The Eurocentric Idea that Science is uniquely European and the damage it has caused in cultural exchange.
2: That just like Math and Science have entirely different methodologies, so Humanities deserves and requires a completely different methodology.
RELEVANT EXCERPT from Literature Survey
Our goal in this section is to bring out several key features of modern economic theory which are products of accidents of European history rather than natural ways of treating the subject matter. This discussion of the historical roots of Western economic theory is necessary because large portions of modern Islamic economics are responses to Western economic theory, albeit informed by different historical experiences.
European loss of faith in the certainties of religion (termed the ‘Death of God’ by Nietzsche) led to the search for alternative certainties on which knowledge could be reliably founded. Scientific knowledge was to take the place of sacred knowledge, and an intensive effort on many fronts was made to establish the superiority, objectivity, and certainty of scientific knowledge, and to distinguish it from other forms of knowledge; see Science Defied and Science Deified by Olson (1990). Mirowski (1989) has described how the tremendous prestige of Newtonian physics resulted in a self-conscious effort by economists to model their discipline along similar lines. Emulation of physics has led to the following elements of modern economic methodology which are quite alien to natural pre-conceptions.
Using just one law of motion for particles, Newton was able to present a unified treatment of a large number of apparently unrelated phenomena. Economists have similarly adopted maximization of utility as the sole acceptable principle of explanation for human behaviour. Surprising as it may seem to outsiders, explanations of human behaviour which take into account motivations other than selfishness or greed are not considered acceptable by modern mainstream economists. Physics-envy is only one part of the explanation of why this became the dominant methodology in economic theory. A number of other quirks of European/American history, described by Manicas (1989) among others, have led to this outcome. The story is further complicated by the recent emergence of a number of competitors, like institutional economics and behavioural/experimental economics, which challenge this dominant methodology. Our goals in sketching this history are to point out that the model of ‘rational self-interest’ is not ‘natural,’ does not correspond to actual human behaviour, and does not offer any special advantages over other methods for constructing economic models. That this has become the bedrock of mainstream methodology in economics is due to specifics of the evolution of thought in Europe and the USA. The idea of regarding humans as solely motivated by selfishness is repugnant to Islamic traditions for many reasons, and this creates substantial divergence between Islamic and Western views regarding economic affairs.
Another development directly related to the tremendous prestige of physics and subsequent scientific developments in Europe is the emphasis placed on use of formal and mathematical methods in economics. McCloskey (1984) has discussed how Samuelson has used mathematics to impress and appear authoritative, and not because it adds any depth to the economic argument. Echoing complaints by many leading economists about the overuse of mathematics, Blaug (1998) writes that “Economists have gradually converted the subject into a sort of social mathematics in which analytical rigor as understood in math departments is everything and empirical relevance (as understood in physics departments) is nothing.” Economics conceived as a set of natural laws, amenable to analysis by mathematical models, has also displaced a historical and qualitative approach to the subject; see Manicas (1989) for details. In contrast, the qualitative and historical tradition initiated by Ibn-e-Khaldun, termed by many the father of the social sciences, continues to dominate Islamic analysis[1].
[1] While the mathematical approach nearly extinguished qualitative alternatives in economics (although they have re-emerged from hiding in the recent past), the same battle has had somewhat different outcomes in political science. See, for example, Monroe (2005), who appeals for a ‘live and let live’ approach which would permit qualitative and historical analyses alongside the dominant formal and mathematical ones.