"The progress of the natural sciences in modern times has of course so much exceeded all expectations that any suggestion that there may be some limits to it is bound to arouse suspicion"
About this Quote
Modern science has dazzled so thoroughly that any whisper of limits sounds like heresy. Hayek points to a cultural reflex born from extraordinary success: when physics and biology produce miracles, skepticism toward boundless progress feels small-minded. Yet the target of his warning is not science itself but an intellectual mood he called scientism, the temptation to carry methods from the natural sciences into domains where the subject matter resists that level of control.
He stresses that human societies are complex orders formed by countless individuals holding partial, tacit, and context-bound knowledge. Such phenomena permit only pattern predictions rather than precise forecasts. Treating them as if they were billiard balls invites failure and, worse, overconfidence. When public life elevates a narrative of unstoppable scientific conquest, anyone who calls for methodological humility appears to be an obstacle to progress. That suspicion reflects faith in technique rather than a clear-eyed assessment of what can be known and steered.
The deeper stakes are political and moral. Claims of near-omniscient expertise often justify centralized plans that attempt to direct economic and social life. If the knowledge needed for such control is inescapably dispersed, then the promise of scientific administration becomes a pretense of knowledge, and the costs of enforcing it can be severe. Recognizing limits is not defeatism; it protects liberty by channeling ambition into institutional designs that harness scattered information, such as prices, norms, and rule-bound governance, instead of trying to calculate everything from the center.
Hayek writes in the shadow of mid-20th-century faith in planning, but his caution resonates in an era of big data and AI. Powerful tools can expand what is measurable without erasing the qualitative, contextual texture of social life. Real progress includes learning where precision is possible and where prudence, decentralization, and experimentation are wiser than heroic control. The suspicion that greets such limits is a cultural habit worth unlearning.
He stresses that human societies are complex orders formed by countless individuals holding partial, tacit, and context-bound knowledge. Such phenomena permit only pattern predictions rather than precise forecasts. Treating them as if they were billiard balls invites failure and, worse, overconfidence. When public life elevates a narrative of unstoppable scientific conquest, anyone who calls for methodological humility appears to be an obstacle to progress. That suspicion reflects faith in technique rather than a clear-eyed assessment of what can be known and steered.
The deeper stakes are political and moral. Claims of near-omniscient expertise often justify centralized plans that attempt to direct economic and social life. If the knowledge needed for such control is inescapably dispersed, then the promise of scientific administration becomes a pretense of knowledge, and the costs of enforcing it can be severe. Recognizing limits is not defeatism; it protects liberty by channeling ambition into institutional designs that harness scattered information, such as prices, norms, and rule-bound governance, instead of trying to calculate everything from the center.
Hayek writes in the shadow of mid-20th-century faith in planning, but his caution resonates in an era of big data and AI. Powerful tools can expand what is measurable without erasing the qualitative, contextual texture of social life. Real progress includes learning where precision is possible and where prudence, decentralization, and experimentation are wiser than heroic control. The suspicion that greets such limits is a cultural habit worth unlearning.
Quote Details
| Topic | Science |
|---|
More Quotes by Friedrich
Add to List
