246 TEE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



THE EEVIVAL OF ECONOMIC ORTHODOXY 



Br Phofessob S. M. PATTEN 



UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 



TO the student of thought, it is interesting to see how long a theory- 

 persists after its foundations have been undermined. One can 

 almost say of theories that, like superstitions, they never die. They 

 have at least nine lives and are killed again and again before their ad- 

 herents can give them up. And the worst of it is that disproved theories 

 have an especial attraction for the best minds. It is not poor thinkers, 

 but good ones, that try to square a circle or to create perpetual motion. 

 Old thought is also well-formulated thought. It has a complete termin- 

 ology and its shades of meaning can be expressed with accuracy. New 

 thought must use terms that are unfamiliar to the public or are twisted 

 somewhat from their popular meaning. A logical thinker let loose on a 

 new topic can play havoc with the printed page of his opponent who has 

 the facts but does not have the language to express his view. Only 

 when one has tried to state some new thought does he realize how poor 

 & vehicle language really is. He finds that most words are synonyms 

 used to express old ideas in many ways. None of them are free from 

 implications that turn the reader back to the older view instead of help- 

 ing him to break new ground. New thought does not get into the 

 printed page until long after it is a reality to those who study nature 

 instead of books. 



This statement has been provoked by an article entitled " A Bugbear 

 to Eef ormers " in the May number of this magazine. If Professor 

 Carver had put his article in an economic journal, his readers would 

 understand what he has omitted or covered up. He choses, however, to 

 appeal to a less specialized audience and talks in terms of analogies, 

 instead of stating the economic facts. Reformers, he says, deny that 

 water runs down hill. This kind of talk has a familiar ring. It is the 

 way orthodox economists of a preceding age reasoned. They rarely 

 stated or even knew the facts. They routed their opponents by a free 

 use of analogies drawn from the physical sciences. While this sort of 

 reasoning fell for a time into disrepute, it has of late shown a renewed 

 vigor because some of the new economists have pushed so far ahead as 

 to be on unstable ground. A reaction has set in and on the tide of the 

 reverse movement some expect a return of the good old days when econ- 

 omists talked of the law of gravitation, the rise and fall of tides, the 



