The subject that I adore most since I went to school is mathematics. The reason is simply because at the elementary school, I hated to memorize something I did not find very useful. But, math is difference. Once you understand it, then you can solve any other problems with logic. Of course, the hardest part lies on the understanding, but the rest shall come a lot easier. Unlike math, in other subjects (and sadly, only in Indonesia, I suppose) we have to memorize from the names of province capitals (that’s alright since I also like geography) to the names of flowers and baby animals in Sundanese (which is so frustating) and to the names of cabinet ministers (which is so ridiculous and I offer my sympathy to the school’s children nowadays, since there have been many cabinet reshuffles lately).
And time goes by. My preference became more complex. Math remains my favourite subject, although I found Physics and Chemistry also interesting. I should pay my tribute to the late Pak Sarjito, my senior high school math teacher, who lived a very simple life (I came to his house weeks after I heard the news of his death, and I found his house very basic. We should pay higher wages to teachers and this country will never go beyond if we don’t pay them well), but had given his life in teaching math with sincere devotion.
And time goes by. Like Coelho’s Santiago, the universe has led me to learn economics. And I love it. But nowadays, economics has become more scientific than before thanks to Prof. Samuelson of the MIT, whose textbook was the first economics book I read. It becomes full of math and also statistics. In fact, the subject that I learn is econometrics, which is the blend of math, stat and econ. One senior lecturer in my university has even suggested that economics has evolved from fundamentalism (as if in Taliban) to idolatry (as if in Jahiliyah era). The former refers to the strong tendency toward conceptual approach (as if Adam Smith’s invisible hand or Keynes’s fiscal policy), while the latter refers to the strong flavour of math, so that no economic theory can become valid if it is not proven mathematically (QED) and derived from optimization, as if the aim of humanity is only to fulfil his shallow desires led by his ego. And you can make a very sophisticated model out of it.
The problem is economics is a social science and should always remain a social science, where the interpretation matters and so what you believe matters too. This is shown by Prof. Mishkin with his celebrating idea of ‘observational equivalence’. So what is our guide? Nothing. Just believe what you think the approach that seems to make sense. And, just believe it. You are of course may get this wrong. So if you’re a Keynesian, you definitely believe that central bank can influence real sector, whereas if you’re a Monetarist, then you can simply leave the central bank out of the equation.
This does not seem very satisfactory, does it?
So, I read Tariq Ramadhan’s the Future of Islam. (He’s recently also published ‘The Messenger’, which is so beautifully written and I highly recommend everyone to read it). I found his ‘Map of Knowledge’ diagram very attractive. The core is the Tawhid and the Revealed Book. And what follows below is what Ramadhan says:
“The various circles represent the various degrees of proximity (without any kind of hierarcy) that the different sciences may have with the scriptural sources. Thus the sciences traditionally called “Islamic” are naturally in the first circle; the humanities, where the scope of interpretation, subjectivity and ideological orientation is considerable, are in the second circle (a particular view of the world may influence work in the sciences); the hard or pure science are in the last circle because their methodologies are virtually autonomous and are connected to the structure imposes by the subject of study”. (taken from Ramadan, T. (2004, pp.59-60).
This is so enlightening. According to him, economics lies on the second circle where what you believe matters. Thus, it is important to define first what you believe. In this case, I shall always refer to Tawhid.
