When newer isn't better

William Broadway, a student at Loughborough University, has invented a way of keeping vaccines cool which might save over a million lives by reviving an invention of Albert Einstein’s. This reminds us of an important fact – that intellectual progress isn’t necessarily linear. Instead, good ideas can be forgotten and bad ones developed, so that science can regress.

For example, the Romans knew how to remove cataracts, knowledge which wasn’t rediscovered until the 20^th century; the steam engine was invented in the first century AD, but long forgotten; and the standard of battlefield medicine might well have been higher in the British civil wars than it was at Crimea two centuries later. The renaissance was so-called because forgotten knowledge was rediscovered.

What’s more, a lot of what looks like progress ain’t so. The replications crises in psychology, economics and medicine (if such there be) warn us that new findings aren’t wholly reliable.

I don’t say this to come over all John Gray on you and deny the existence of progress. Instead, I do so to challenge an implicit presumption many of us have  - that today’s work is superior to that of 10, 20 or even 100 years ago.

Instead, it’s possible that peer review and grant-awarding processes sometimes select for fashionable rather than effective research; that informational overload means that some good ideas get neglected; and/or that increasingly narrow fields of specialism cause inspiring ideas from separate fields to be ignored.

It’s from this perspective that we should view the debate about the relative merits of stock-flow consistent or heterodox models against DSGE ones. I don’t want to take a view on Brad DeLong’s claim that DSGE models have been “a catastrophic failure”, but I can say that if they are there’s nothing unique about fashionable research programmes being a dead-end or in once-forgotten ideas proving powerful when they are revived.

To take but two examples of the latter, I’d suggest that the macroeconomics of income distribution are better analysed through Marxian-Kaleckian (pdf) models in which power matters rather than through more “modern” theories, and that the theory of natural selection – which Darwin took from economics – contains many insights that enrich our understanding of economics.

My point here should be a trivial one. We should not presume that newer means better, because institutions don’t always select ideas optimally. One reason why we should study the history of ideas is that doing so reminds us of this fact.

Comments

[Eddie the Vulture]

Of course newer isn't always better. For example, how do you fly to New York from Heathrow in 3hr 20min now? On a smaller note, starting with the Ford Cortina in 1964 and carrying through to Lotus sportscars of the era, you could have cool air in your face with warm air to your legs (to dry your rain-soaked trousers), but now you can't.
But it sometimes is. Those fly-out trafficators weren't better than flashing indicators.

[Jim M.]

"Those fly-out trafficators weren't better than flashing indicators."

But they could be interpreted as a triumph of style over efficiency, a reminder that even whimsy can add value.

Enough with your hard-hearted efficiency drive; Bring on the flappy flaggy things!

(We can, I think, afford a moment or two of levity as in today's contribution Chris has failed to mention The Bearded One, so the comments section should be relatively light. No clickbait for Mr Dillow!) ;)

[The Philosopher]

Progress is stopped also purposely as the chinese explorer in 1700s found out (i forgot his name).

What broke the logjam in the 20th century was the bolsheviks scaring the shit out of the plutocrats and church enough to provide space for higher level non pluto children to espouse ideas hitherto blocked.

Knowledge generation is a political economy problem. Not a technical one as the author inadvertedly points out.

Today the blank state destroys many advances and saddles many institutions with censorship and placing low iq minorities in positions of knowledge creation and destruction. Often their genetics override truth.

This a reason behind the replicaion crisis in psychology for instance.

You may disagree. Your "opinion" was formed in your childhood by the same oligarchy for extractive purposes. Great philosophers had to unlearn more than learn.

Darwin and galton know very well that enlightenment is not about making people autistic surplus producers. Are you sure you want real intellectual progress? It is not too late to hold fast to your anchored teddy bears. I must warn you that knowledge acquisition is an emotional problem, not cognitive.

[PaulB]

"The steam engine was invented in the first century".

But it wasn't. The aeolipile described by Heron was just a toy: there's no evidence that it was ever used as an engine. Newcomen invented the steam engine.

[3Lllama]

It would be more accurate to say that no-one invented the steam engine as its principles of operation were clear before anyone could build an economically-efficient example. Newcomen's ingenuity consisted of finding a practical workaround; oakum packing would expand in contact with the team to form a low-friction seal. Later, Watt wouldn't need this fix as by then engineers like his friend Brindley could deliver much better tolerances.

[Joe Mckay]

Steven pool recently published a book on this topic:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jun/28/why-bad-ideas-refuse-die

[Joe Mckay]

Yikes- that should be Steven Poole of course.

I am currently reading the book. It is good so far. Really interesting topic.

[3Lllama]

Ahh .. I meant Boulton not Brindley. Not enough coffee this morning. Apologies.

[aragon]

Roman Concrete, is a lost technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete

"Recent scientific breakthroughs examining Roman concrete are gathering media and industry attention.[11][12] Because of its unusual durability, longevity and lessened environmental footprint, corporations and municipalities are starting to explore the use of Roman-style concrete in North America, substituting the volcanic ash with coal fly ash that has similar properties. Proponents claim that concrete made with fly ash can cost up to 60% less because it requires less aggregate, and that it has a smaller environmental footprint due to its lower cooking temperature and much longer lifespan.[13] Usable examples of Roman concrete exposed to harsh marine environments have been found to be 2000 years old with little or no wear.[14]"

Even I am beginning to doubt I exist, I post therefore I am - Apologies to Descartes

[SimonB]

The Roman cataract operation was probably couching: pushing the lens back into the eye. It wasn't forgotten, it just wasn't very good. It can hardly be described as having been rediscovered in the 20th century, the newer techniques are completely different and better.

Interestingly J. S. Bach had his cataracts couched. Apparently it was as successful as the operation could be. He died the next day. One thing the Romans were superior at was anaesthetics!