Recently I bought a 2nd hand copy of Jane Jacobs’ 1969 [amazon_link id=”039470584X” target=”_blank” ]The Economy of Cities[/amazon_link], a Pelican paperback edition. I first read it years ago but had somehow lost my copy – or maybe it’s somewhere in the house, just mislaid.
Anyway, this, from the first page:
“We are all well aware … that ideas universally believed are not necessarily true. We are also aware that it is only after the untruth of such ideas has been exposed that it becomes apparent how pervasive and insidious their influence have been.”
The universally believed idea she wants to knock down in the chapter is that city economies evolve at a later stage after rural economies; but I’m not sure it has yet given up the ghost entirely. But her sociology of knowledge is surely spot on, with its account of distinguished experts, career built on the old dogmas, dismissing bold new claims.
[amazon_image id=”B000TOPA52″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ](The Economy of Cities) BY (Jacobs, Jane) on 1970 (Paperback)[/amazon_image]
Is not the falsification and obsolescence of old dogmas a long and piecemeal process? And is there not also a complication between how experts and the layman reject old beliefs?
To use some simple examples, I suspect many economists believe there are strong benefits from immigration and free trade (which had to replace older dogmas like mercantilism etc), but the general public are a lot more skeptical and prone to fallacious reasoning or emotional responses.