Libertarian shoots up subway [Archive]

¿Que?

5th March 2010, 21:03

I haven't been here long, but out of curiosity; if this was a communist who shot up the subway, what would be the reaction here? The same?

I'm glad you asked this, because it sort of relates to what I was going to post anyway. As a general rule, communist are more inclined towards collective action. If we ever see a resurgence of left wing or communist terrorism, it will probably be a small group of people, claiming to be the vanguard of the working class, and most likely splintering off from a larger movement or organization. It's unlikely that we'll ever see "lone wolf" type violence coming from the left, as it is generally not ideologically consistent.

Unlike the left, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, truthers, teabaggers etc lack a fundamental capacity towards bottom-up organizing. Generally, when the right mobilizes on a large scale, you will likely find the republican party or some corporate entity like Fox news pulling the strings.

This generally results in acts of desperation carried out by disaffected individuals who have pretty much given up on everything.

That said, you will probably certainly find some exceptions. Yet, as a general rule, I think it's safe to say that the right generally mobilizes from top to bottom, whereas the left mobilizes from bottom up.

For this reason, many on the right are unsatisfied by the nature of their own organized movements, and so carry out individual acts of desperate violence.

Anyway, this is just a theory of mine, I could be wrong...

John_Jordan

5th March 2010, 21:04

I'm glad you asked this, because it sort of relates to what I was going to post anyway. As a general rule, communist are more inclined towards collective action. If we ever see a resurgence of left wing or communist terrorism, it will probably be a small group of people, claiming to be the vanguard of the working class, and most likely splintering off from a larger movement or organization. It's unlikely that we'll ever see "lone wolf" type violence coming from the left, as it is generally not ideologically consistent.

Unlike the left, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, truthers, teabaggers etc lack a fundamental capacity towards bottom-up organizing. Generally, when the right mobilizes on a large scale, you will likely find the republican party or some corporate entity like Fox news pulling the strings.

This generally results in acts of desperation carried out by disaffected individuals who have pretty much given up on everything.

That said, you will probably certainly find some exceptions. Yet, as a general rule, I think it's safe to say that the right generally mobilizes from top to bottom, whereas the left mobilizes from bottom up.

For this reason, many on the right are unsatisfied by the nature of their own organized movements, and so carry out individual acts of desperate violence.

Anyway, this is just a theory of mine, I could be wrong...

If you are wrong, good job anyway. It certainly sounds like a reasonable theory.

¿Que?

5th March 2010, 21:14

If you are wrong, good job anyway. It certainly sounds like a reasonable theory.

well, I've been entertaining this idea in my head for quite a while, but have not expressed it to anyone until now. I'm glad you think it's at the very least reasonable.

Invincible Summer

5th March 2010, 21:38

If you've noticed, most communist actions of urban guerrilla terrorism have been committed by organizations and groups, not individuals. Examples: Rote Armee Fraktion, The Weather Underground

The Red Next Door

5th March 2010, 22:11

it is sad that, this had happen but, it sort of a good thing. the man just shot the tea party cause in the foot. i think it is just plain sad. so don't ban me.

IcarusAngel

5th March 2010, 22:30

Absolutely unforgivable.

Dimentio

5th March 2010, 22:32

it is sad that, this had happen but, it sort of a good thing. the man just shot the tea party cause in the foot. i think it is just plain sad. so don't ban me.

Not really. The Tea Parties are partially supported by the establishment. It could develop into more control and surveillance over militias, extreme libertarians and truthers though... as well as increased surveillance over the internet at large.

IcarusAngel

5th March 2010, 22:41

Sorry I was so mad I hit the post button prematurely. When people kill for an ideology like Islam, "racial theory" or misean economics it just really burns me up to no end.

I think economists need to take responsibility for these kooks, beginning by explaining why economics cannot have a "universal theory of everything," and why economics is NOT a science and is limited in its nature and scope. They should explain its often best used as analyzing a historical tool and we can draw conclusions from that, using the "scientific method."

I actually posted some things critical of Mises and several Libertarians threatened me, and one created an alternative account (some actually added me as a friend but they might be using a script that adds people who talk about Misean economics).

Apparently: All economics is flawed but Misean economics because economics has succumbed to "logical positivism," the "division of labor" is responsible for everything great in society, the endless amount of scientists and engineers that invented through creativity or through govt. funding were "mistakes" or "misappropriated resources," Mises discovered the true axioms and principles of human nature, the use of mathematics, unless directed by Misean axioms, is "wrong.'

One Misean even told me that the nineteenth century represented the greatest century in history and the biggest advancements.

Funny thing is half of these guys have never even read Mises and didn't know where I was quoting Mises from. He's dogmatic, but his cultish followers are even worse than he is (hayenmill's idea of "perfect competition" is straight outta LVM).

That's funny considering electronics, aeronautics, advanced mathematics (Russell/Whitehead started in the 1900s), and the glorious computer industry had its greatest contributions done in the TWENTIETH CENTURY.

It's clear the left needs to take the "Misean" ideology more seriously, before more people get hurt for the one most ridiculous cults in history.

Salyut

5th March 2010, 22:42

Absolutely unforgivable.

I was just waiting for you to weigh in. :p

IcarusAngel

5th March 2010, 22:44

Not really. The Tea Parties are partially supported by the establishment. It could develop into more control and surveillance over militias, extreme libertarians and truthers though... as well as increased surveillance over the internet at large.

It's not a good thing.

If anything it shows the failure of the left to not combat it more imo...

Of course, cults are cults, so the left can't combat everything, but by presenting alternatives to Mises, people won't take it as seriously. When the dogmatic cult members see a large surge in support, they start getting too cocky.

"I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." --Bertrand Russell.

All social science theories are debatable, even Marxism.

IcarusAngel

5th March 2010, 22:48

I was just waiting for you to weigh in. :p

Well, it's just so cultish to me.

Notice how even our own Miseans state controversial claims as true, even when they're highly debatable:

"Logical positivism is proven wrong because of Mises." "Free-competition will always balance out monopolistic forces in markets."

The latter is especially controversial because empirical evidence is against it, but the empirical evidence is flawed because of one Miseans excuse or another.

Even racism is still discussed at some of their institutes.

It isn't just a matter of one Misean or two Miseans but all Miseans who do this, based on "axioms" that are more like platitudes than axioms.

What does "human action" or "self-ownership" even mean. One is a platitude, the other is a contradictory, recursive, and nonsensical statement, but both of the "proofs" are "automatically proven" by mere existence.

Misean economcis isn't really just bad economics, it's a war on the human mind and the progress humans have made beginning with the Greeks.

Salyut

5th March 2010, 22:53

Yeah some guys on IRC I talk with got heavy into the stuff, they've pretty much got over it except for one guy who runs a Austrian blog (and finally did get a article on Mises).

Don't they claim Mises invented modern optics or something too?

EDIT: also Walter Block is lolcrazy and the fact that people take him seriously is scary.

Demogorgon

5th March 2010, 22:55

This is quite a sad situation really. Obviously I don't want to try and play amateur detective, but when you walk into the Pentagon waving a gun around you aren't expecting to come out alive. This could well be something along the lines of "suicide by cop".

Anyway it would be foolish to say he did this simply because he was a Libertarian, because patently for all their other faults, the average Libertarian never tries to kill anybody, but rather I imagine he did it because he was a rather troubled individual.

However being a troubled individual could well be the reason he was a Libertarian. It has a clearly misanthropic strain to it, particularly in the Misean stuff. That is going to appeal to a certain kind of person.

IcarusAngel

5th March 2010, 22:55

Don't they claim Mises invented modern optics or something too?

Yes, they have made that claim.

Even other Miseans thought it to be ridiculous.

IcarusAngel

5th March 2010, 22:58

Anyway it would be foolish to say he did this simply because he was a Libertarian, because patently for all their other faults, the average Libertarian never tries to kill anybody, but rather I imagine he did it because he was a rather troubled individual.

Dogmatic ideologies are as dangerous as dogmatic religion.

I admit most Libertarians are young, and non-violent. Most are harmless trolls even, many are "academic" versions of trolls, like creationists.

But when you believe all the axiomatic stuff of Misean economics it's easy to see how you could get frustrated since society isn't constructed off them (and really never could be).

This has happened several times now from far-right wing Libertarians and far-right conservatives in the past 20 years. It is obviously an issue to be concerned with.

Salyut

5th March 2010, 22:59

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

I should add that he seemed to have no problem working with the pre-Anschluss fascist government of Austria.

Bud Struggle

5th March 2010, 23:00

I haven't been here long, but out of curiosity; if this was a communist who shot up the subway, what would be the reaction here? The same?

The same (or it should be the same): it's just some poor psychotic guy.

Salyut

5th March 2010, 23:04

However being a troubled individual could well be the reason he was a Libertarian. It has a clearly misanthropic strain to it, particularly in the Misean stuff. That is going to appeal to a certain kind of person.

The Miseans are like economic Scientologists. The vast majority of Libertarians are harmless and can actually be open to left wing ideas in my experience.*

*I actually had one admit communism was possible in a anarcho-collectivist setting. Took me completely by surprise.

whore

5th March 2010, 23:04

if it was a communist who shot up a subway, i assume that all true leftists would object. not only because of the damage to the cause, but also because of the innocents who were killed.

now, going and shooting up a parliament, or investment bank, and i think youll see different reactions. if innocents arent being killed, there is much less to morn.

IcarusAngel

5th March 2010, 23:06

The same (or it should be the same): it's just some poor psychotic guy.

It's different bud. Marxism is nowhere near as dogmatic as axiomatic economics, and it's "method" is based closer to the scientific method. The scientific method is not about unprovable axioms but evidence as well, so a Marxist interpretation could theoretically be proven wrong or altered. Logic is inherent to science, but generally scientists don't sit and debate over "true meaning" of what those might be (it'd be more accurate to say they go where logic tells them to).

Marxism isn't even the only theory that does this, look into Hans-Morgenthau'sversion of "realism."

The guy who did this was smart enough to be a computer programmer, but not smart enough to avoid Misean axioms.

It's interesting to note that the reason computer scientists stopped looking for computers that could solve all problems is due to "Godel's theorem."

That is to say, some problems have no algorithmic solutions, and computers must be tailored to the algorithms using human intuition.

There's a book on godel's theorem and obviously right-wingers need to review the theorem and its importance on society.

Demogorgon

5th March 2010, 23:07

Dogmatic ideologies are as dangerous as dogmatic religion.

I admit most Libertarians are young, and non-violent. Most are harmless trolls even, many are "academic" versions of trolls, like creationists.

But when you believe all the axiomatic stuff of Misean economics it's easy to see how you could get frustrated since society isn't constructed off them (and really never could be).

This has happened several times now from far-right wing Libertarians and far-right conservatives in the past 20 years. It is obviously an issue to be concerned with.
This isn't the place to get into the debate about why people do these things and I've had it too many times before. Suffice to say, you don't kill simply because you believe something. In a killing like this, there is likely to be a mental illness or psychological disorder at play. And like I say that kind of thing could well attract someone towards Libertarianism.

However, I don't think it had to be Libertarianism. Put a person like that in different circumstances and they might end up a fascist, or one of the particularly nasty religious fundamentalists or whatever. Whatever misanthropic ideology they choose though, it will likely end in tears.

Salyut

5th March 2010, 23:08

The same (or it should be the same): it's just some poor psychotic guy.

He didn't have to be psychotic to do something like this. People burned themselves to death in protest of the Vietnam war (one even in the parking lot of the Pentagon). In his mind he could have thought he was accomplishing something similar.

If he was a classical liberal or something, I suspect this wouldn't have happened.

Bud Struggle

5th March 2010, 23:11

He didn't have to be psychotic to do something like this. People burned themselves to death in protest of the Vietnam war (one even in the parking lot of the Pentagon). In his mind he could have thought he was accomplishing something similar.

If he was a classical liberal or something, I suspect this wouldn't have happened.

I don't see it. This isn't the work of a normal person with political ambitions--it's the work of a person completely out of touch with reality.

It's different bud. Marxism is nowhere near as dogmatic as axiomatic economics, and it's "method" is based closer to the scientific method. The scientific method is not about unprovable axioms but evidence as well, so a Marxist interpretation could theoretically be proven wrong or altered. Logic is inherent to science, but generally scientists don't sit and debate over "true meaning" of what those might be (it'd be more accurate to say they go where logic tells them to).

Marxism isn't even the only theory that does this, look into Hans-Morgenthau'sversion of "realism."

The guy who did this was smart enough to be a computer programmer, but not smart enough to avoid Misean axioms.

It's interesting to note that the reason computer scientists stopped looking for computers that could solve all problems is due to "Godel's theorem."

That is to say, some problems have no algorithmic solutions, and computers must be tailored to the algorithms using human intuition.

There's a book on godel's theorem and obviously right-wingers need to review the theorem and its importance on society.

But it's not about theory. It's about a lunatic. Trying to stick Libertarianism or Marxism or Capitalism or Nazism or whatever on some whacko isn't really that productive.

IcarusAngel

5th March 2010, 23:11

This isn't the place to get into the debate about why people do these things and I've had it too many times before. Suffice to say, you don't kill simply because you believe something. In a killing like this, there is likely to be a mental illness or psychological disorder at play. And like I say that kind of thing could well attract someone towards Libertarianism.

However, I don't think it had to be Libertarianism. Put a person like that in different circumstances and they might end up a fascist, or one of the particularly nasty religious fundamentalists or whatever. Whatever misanthropic ideology they choose though, it will likely end in tears.

Agreed good points.

Demogorgon

5th March 2010, 23:14

The Miseans are like economic Scientologists.Oh believe me when I say I know them all too well. Actually it is kind of funny to watch how they have gotten progressively more demented over time. Back when the Austrian school was fairly new, it had a bunch of thinkers who were clearly wrong but at least some of whom were clearly acting in good faith and trying to do proper research. These days it is a madhouse. And that is why troubled individuals might gravitate towards them. When you peddle misanthropy, you better be prepared for what you end up associating with.

Bud Struggle

5th March 2010, 23:18

Technically Demo is saying the same thing as I am--he's just saying it better. :(

Dimentio

5th March 2010, 23:19

I don't see it. This isn't the work of a normal person with political ambitions--it's the work of a person completely out of touch with reality.

Apparently, he wanted a marijuana-backed currency...

Salyut

5th March 2010, 23:28

Apparently, he wanted a marijuana-backed currency...

Well if inflation gets to Weimar levels, no one will give a damn at that point. :cool:

Skooma Addict

5th March 2010, 23:29

Socialists and leftists always seem to try to score political points off of stuff like this for some reason.

Dimentio

5th March 2010, 23:35

Socialists and leftists always seem to try to score political points off of stuff like this for some reason.

*stretching up hand*

Not me!

Qwerty Dvorak

6th March 2010, 04:55

Socialists and leftists always seem to try to score political points off of stuff like this for some reason.
Don't deny that at least some right wingers would be dong the same thing if it was a commie who shot up a building.

Kwisatz Haderach

6th March 2010, 05:01

I haven't been here long, but out of curiosity; if this was a communist who shot up the subway, what would be the reaction here? The same?
Communists have been criticizing acts of individual terrorism for over 100 years. As far back as the 1900s, Lenin and Trotsky argued that anyone resorting to individual violence in the name of the communist cause is an idiot and a liability.

John_Jordan

6th March 2010, 08:54

Communists have been criticizing acts of individual terrorism for over 100 years. As far back as the 1900s, Lenin and Trotsky argued that anyone resorting to individual violence in the name of the communist cause is an idiot and a liability.

Personal opinion varies. Not every communist is going to agree with every statement made by previous communist thinkers. Even if they tried, previous communists did not universally agree with each other.

And this forum has more than just communists on it.

IcarusAngel

7th March 2010, 21:22

It doesn't matter because Marxism is not a cult. Austrian-economics is a cult, even more dogmatic than Randianism. And it needs to be looked at from that perspective.

Bud Struggle

7th March 2010, 21:28

It doesn't matter because Marxism is not a cult.

Marxism used to be not a cult--times have changed on the last 25 years. Then, one sixth of the world (as Stalin used to say) was Communist. Now we're all hangin' here just shooting the breeze about Revolution and world domination on RevLeft and there are are a whole lot of us Communists (by recent poll on RevLeft) that would like to have sex with 10 year old girls.:)

We need a better plan, don't you think?

Skooma Addict

7th March 2010, 23:30

It doesn't matter because Marxism is not a cult. Austrian-economics is a cult, even more dogmatic than Randianism. And it needs to be looked at from that perspective.

Austrian economics is a cult now? I guess the leftists are just doing what they always do....dismiss what you can't refute.

John_Jordan

7th March 2010, 23:35

It doesn't matter because Marxism is not a cult. Austrian-economics is a cult, even more dogmatic than Randianism. And it needs to be looked at from that perspective.

Austrian-economics is a cult? In what way? And what the heck is "Randianism"?

IcarusAngel

7th March 2010, 23:45

Austrian economics has been refuted many of times. They base their theories off of axioms that they don't give evidence for, and then discard all the empirical evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Any belief that cannot be proven is taken as an "axiom." Their interpretations of history are way off, such as all progress is from "the division of labor" than enhanced social cooperation that exists because of the state. They discard mathematics and when you bring up mathematical theorems they never respond.

It is based on revisionism, pathological science, and discredited economics. That is cultism.

Ayn Rand's ideology is also cultish but not even rand made up her own axioms.

Skooma Addict

7th March 2010, 23:54

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 00:09

Any ideology that's based off a series of nonsense that people blindly follow is a cult.

If I made up a mathematical ideology that said all mathematics is reducible to A = A, and interpreted any other mathematical theorem within this basis, and people blindly followed it, it would be a cult. All mathematics is not a matter of A = A, and it would be even worse if we started applying "logical conclusions" to other fields based on this statement that cannot be shown to be correct (and in fact has been shown to be impossible).

In much the same way, Austrian economics is based on a series of assumptions and opinions that they cannot prove, but that their followers hold onto blindly, and interpret any economic information and data within these made up axioms.

However, not only do they view economics through the prism of their nonsensical axioms, but all of science and human nature as well. So no matter how much evidence contradicts them they still hold onto their views.

Red Saxon

8th March 2010, 00:10

As far back as the 1900s, Lenin and Trotsky argued that anyone resorting to individual violence in the name of the communist cause is an idiot and a liability.Trotsky also said this in his work "Democratic Panslavism." (approved by Marx)

These remains of nations [the Slavic peoples] which have been mercilessly trampled down by the passage of history, as Hegel expressed it, this ethnic trash always becomes and remains until its complete extermination or denationalization, the most fanatic carrier of counterrevolution, since its entire existence is nothing more than a protest against a great historical revolution. . . [p 63]

Anyone care to make sense of this?

Skooma Addict

8th March 2010, 00:23

Comrade Anarchist

8th March 2010, 00:52

The dude was fucking INSANE!!! He walked two feet toward the pentagon fire a couple shots and was killed. No other deaths. The guy was bipolar, and smoking fucking weed. This site automatically shit themselves thinking you have a tool against the dangerous ancaps. The irs guy was off his fucking rockers, i read his suicide note, he couldn't decide whether he is was against the government or capitalism. These guys may have held some ancap beliefs but they were insane, legally insane in one case, and no misean, rothbardian, randian, ancap would ever endorse them nor do any of these acts.

John_Jordan

8th March 2010, 00:54

Any ideology that's based off a series of nonsense that people blindly follow is a cult.

Define "nonsense". Depending on how you define it, the Austrian School may or may not be a cult, as you see it.

In much the same way, Austrian economics is based on a series of assumptions and opinions that they cannot prove, but that their followers hold onto blindly, and interpret any economic information and data within these made up axioms.

However, not only do they view economics through the prism of their nonsensical axioms, but all of science and human nature as well. So no matter how much evidence contradicts them they still hold onto their views.

Do you know what an axiom is? You make a lot of noise over the unprovability of their axioms. But you do realise that axioms are by definition, not proved? If they were proved, they wouldn't be axioms.

Austrian economics has been refuted many of times.

I would love to see such a thing. Austrian economics, and really, any school of economics, are by their nature very difficult to refute. Economics isn't very scientific you see.

They base their theories off of axioms that they don't give evidence for, and then discard all the empirical evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

Axioms, by definition, do not have evidence. And while I do not particularly care for the Austrian School, from what I know of them they do not "discard" evidence. Not any more than any other school does anyway.

It is based on revisionism, pathological science, and discredited economics. That is cultism.

What is pathological science?

Ayn Rand's ideology is also cultish but not even rand made up her own axioms.

Yes she did. "Existence, Identity, and Consciousness." For Rand, everything follows from those three Axioms.

I suppose you didn't know that because you don't know anything about what Rand said.

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 01:18

Do you know what an axiom is? You make a lot of noise over the unprovability of their axioms. But you do realise that axioms are by definition, not proved? If they were proved, they wouldn't be axioms.

The difference between your axioms and the axioms of mathematics is that the axioms of mathematics have valid logical uses and clearly build into logically coherent systems. For example, the postulate of lines, planes, and the definition of a right triangle in geometry is assumed to be true because of the evidence we see. When the definition of a line is provided, we can conclude that a^2 + b^2 = c^2. This has been validated hundreds of times in mathematics and in the real world. The axioms exist to prevent mathematics from becoming circular.

Without assuming these axioms you could not continue further; you couldn't even prove basic theorems of geometry without them.

In contrast, the Misean axioms are of no use and are not ever used to prove anything.

I would love to see such a thing. Austrian economics, and really, any school of economics, are by their nature very difficult to refute. Economics isn't very scientific you see.

This is true but irrelevant to the argument I was making. They are wrong because they aren't following the standards of economics and are sticking to their axioms, which they don't even show to be correct with math but with words.

Axioms, by definition, do not have evidence.

They certainly do have evidence; they are self-evident. They are unproven assumptions, but the evidence that they exist is assumed because of their uses.

How you prove that a line and a point not on the line is contained exactly by one plane without the necessary postulate (three noncollinear points makes a plane) in Euclidian geometry?

"In traditional logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence), or subject to necessary decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making). Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths."

"In mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics), the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom#Logical_axioms) and "non-logical axioms" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom#Non-logical_axioms). In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. "

And while I do not particularly care for the Austrian School, from what I know of them they do not "discard" evidence. Not any more than any other school does anyway.

See criticisms of austrian economics. They discard very much evidence that goes against their belief.

There is also not a single case of where their "axioms" has proven anything wrong.

What is pathological science?

I don't have time to explain what mathematics is and the difference between non-science and pseudo-science. Google the terms and find out for yourself or open up a book.

Yes she did. "Existence, Identity, and Consciousness." For Rand, everything follows from those three Axioms.

I suppose you didn't know that because you don't know anything about what Rand said.

Ayn rand didn't invent the "identity" axiom. If she invented her own axioms though it shows that she was indeed as crazy as the Miseans.

gorillafuck

8th March 2010, 01:32

Why does someone shooting up subway constitute any sort of argument against a political ideology?

The guy was bipolar, and smoking fucking weed.
Does weed cause bipolar disorder to become more extreme?

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 01:34

Why does someone shooting up subway constitute any sort of argument against a political ideology?

Who said that it did?

Comrade Anarchist

8th March 2010, 01:37

Why does someone shooting up subway constitute any sort of argument against a political ideology?

Does weed cause bipolar disorder to become more extreme?

No but weed does not exactly lead to the best mental decisions.

gorillafuck

8th March 2010, 01:40

Who said that it did?
Why was it specified that this was done by a libertarian if not an effort to demonize libertarianism?

No but weed does not exactly lead to the best mental decisions.
Yeah, weed causes people to shoot up fast food restaurants. That must have been the cause.:rolleyes:

Skooma Addict

8th March 2010, 01:42

#FF0000

8th March 2010, 01:42

No but weed does not exactly lead to the best mental decisions.

People on weed might do dumb things sometimes but I don't think it often leads to shooting up a place. I know I'm nitpicking but

John_Jordan

8th March 2010, 01:46

The difference between your axioms and the axioms of mathematics is that the axioms of mathematics have valid logical uses and clearly build into logically coherent systems. For example, the postulate of lines, planes, and the definition of a right triangle in geometry is assumed to be true because of the evidence we see. When the definition of a line is provided, we can conclude that a^2 + b^2 = c^2. This has been validated hundreds of times in mathematics and in the real world. The axioms exist to prevent mathematics from becoming circular.

Without assuming these axioms you could not continue further; you couldn't even prove basic theorems of geometry without them.

In contrast, the Misean axioms are of no use and are not ever used to prove anything.

You don't know what "my axioms" are. I still haven't got a clue what axioms you keep talking about specifically. I know they are from the Austrian School or something, but I'm not an Austrian economist.

This is true but irrelevant to the argument I was making. They are wrong because they aren't following the standards of economics and are sticking to their axioms, which they don't even show to be correct with math but with words.Two things. Just because the Austrian School is not mainstream, that doesn't make it wrong because it is not mainstream. Marxian economics is also not mainstream.

Second, there is nothing wrong with using words. We are both using words right now, after all.

They certainly do have evidence; they are self-evident. They are unproven assumptions, but the evidence that they exist is assumed because of their uses.Certainly the Austrian School takes their axioms to be self-evident as well. And they clearly have some use, at least to those of the Austrian School.

See criticisms of austrian economics. They discard very much evidence that goes against their belief.

There is also not a single case of where their "axioms" has proven anything wrong. I don't take your word for it.

I don't have time to explain what mathematics is and the difference between non-science and pseudo-science. Google the terms and find out for yourself or open up a book.You didn't say anything about non-science or pseudo-science, or mathematics. You said "Pathological science" which is a term I've never heard before.

And when asked for clarification on a term telling the other person to do the work in figuring out the meaning is not very conductive to argument. You were the one to mention it after all. Not me.

Ayn rand didn't invent the "identity" axiom. If she invented her own axioms though it shows that she was indeed as crazy as the Miseans.Perhaps we are using two different definitions for "made up her own axioms." She uses the Law of Identity. Not everybody does. But she did, to use it as a basis for her philosophy. In that sense, she made it up, so she could use it.

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 01:52

Icarus, there are good criticisms of AE, but you aren't giving any. Whether or not the action axiom is a true synthetic a priori proposition is debatable, but until evidence is found saying otherwise, the action/behavior dichotomy is a reasonable assumption.

It is a criticism of their axiomatic method. The fact that John Jordan just failed to show how the Misean axiom is valid further proves that it doesn't even exist.

An Axiom is not merely an "assumption." It's an unproven assumption whose truth is assumed in order to proceed. It's truth is contained within the system.
For example, 3 x 2 = 2 x 3.

If I have 3 cans and I multiply that by 2, I end up with 6 cans. If I have 2 cans and I multiply them by 3, I have 6 cans. The communicative property of multiplication is assumed to be true - not proven.

As far as a being a tool for economic analysis, praxeology is useful because it establishes logically necessary boundaries on economic theorizing. But it is by itself incomplete. Research programs based on the emperics, such as Behavioral or Experimental economics can teach us about behavior in a more detailed way.

Praxeology is not useful nor has it ever contributed anything to humanity. Economics ONLY can determine the effects of trade among people and the results of how resources are used. That is the definition of the field. It doesn't say anything about the human mind.

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 01:54

You don't know what "my axioms" are.

If you had a series of new axioms that no one knew about that actually leads to something useful you'd win a Fields' medal.

I still haven't got a clue what axioms you keep talking about specifically. I know they are from the Austrian School or something, but I'm not an Austrian economist.

Then why would you claim that their axioms are valid without even knowing what you're talking about?

Certainly the Austrian School takes their axioms to be self-evident as well. And they clearly have some use, at least to those of the Austrian School.

Show what the axioms are and show their usage in the way I showed the definition of a line is necessary for the triangle.

If you can't prove it, admit the axioms don't exist.

John_Jordan

8th March 2010, 01:58

It is a criticism of their axiomatic method. The fact that John Jordan just failed to show how the Misean axiom is valid further proves that it doesn't even exist.

My personal inability to defend something (something I don't even know about!) is not evidence for the lack of existence of said something.

Praxeology is not useful nor has it ever contributed anything to humanity.Game Theory isn't useful all of a sudden? Actually, what is it that you call "useful"?

If you had a series of new axioms that no one knew about that actually leads to something useful you'd win a Fields' medal.

Okay? That doesn't really have anything to do with how you need to stop assuming you know what my views are when I haven't mentioned my views.

Then why would you claim that their axioms are valid without even knowing what you're talking about?

I didn't claim they were valid. What I've been doing so far is pointing out arguments I think are bad. Whether you are right or not is a different issue. You can be correct and still have bad arguments.

Show what the axioms are and show their usage in the way I showed the definition of a line is necessary for the triangle.

If you can't prove it, admit the axioms don't exist.

See? Bad argument. While I can't do this right now (theoretically it might be possible, but I don't quite care enough to try it), it doesn't have anything to do with whether the axioms "exist" or not. It just means I personally can't do something.

Skooma Addict

8th March 2010, 02:01

It is a criticism of their axiomatic method. The fact that John Jordan just failed to show how the Misean axiom is valid further proves that it doesn't even exist.

An Axiom is not merely an "assumption." It's an unproven assumption whose truth is assumed in order to proceed. It's truth is contained within the system.
For example, 3 x 2 = 2 x 3.

If I have 3 cans and I multiply that by 2, I end up with 6 cans. If I have 2 cans and I multiply them by 3, I have 6 cans. The communicative property of multiplication is assumed to be true - not proven.I think that it is debatable whether or not the action axiom is true. But what other purpose for meaningful action is there besides substituting a more preferable state of affairs for a less preferable one in your opinion?

Praxeology is not useful nor has it ever contributed anything to humanity. Economics ONLY can determine the effects of trade among people and the results of how resources are used. That is the definition of the field. It doesn't say anything about the human mind.Praxeology is not a substitute for psychology. Why people want what they do is of no interest for praxeology.

Also, what methodology do you apply to science?

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 02:02

Skooma Addict

8th March 2010, 02:08

If you don't know what math is why would you even try and claim that Misean axioms are the same thing?

And the fact that Olaf just claimed that Misean axioms exist but the set isn't complete yet proves he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about either. How is he supposed to be an "economist" when he hasn't even passed calc 1 yet?

All that has been proven is that you have absolutely no idea what it is that Austrian Economists believe. I said it is debatable whether or not the action axiom is true, and that somehow proves that I don't know what I am talking about? I don't know how I am supposed to be an economist either since I have no desire to become one. You also seem to refuse to say what methodology you apply to science. Maybe you are uninformed on the subject?

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 02:11

You said "Pathological science" which is a term I've never heard before.

Pathological science is when you make up a theory or axiom, and then go around and selectively apply data to support your theory. You could view it as the reverse of the scientific method.

This is what Ludwig von Mises did when he made up his axioms, although Mises never even stated all of his axioms explicitly. Praxeology is another pathological science he was involved in.

Pathological scientists also ignore evidence that contradicts them. This is what Libertarians do when they predict crashes that never occur, claim some hidden variable is the reason the crash didn't occur, and then continue with the bad prediction. It's the incorporation of "wishful thinking" into science.

John_Jordan

8th March 2010, 02:16

Pathological scientists also ignore evidence that contradicts them. This is what Libertarians do when they predict crashes that never occur, claim some hidden variable is the reason the crash didn't occur, and then continue with the bad prediction. It's the incorporation of "wishful thinking" into science.

Crashes get predicted all the time that never occur, and economists from every school claim there was a hidden variable to why their prediction didn't come true. This goes back to the whole "Economics isn't very scientific" thing. Economics as a whole is bad at predicting things.

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 02:22

Yes, but then real economists then go back to the drawing board and rework their models, to see what was wrong. They don't have a set of axioms they work off of.

The fact that economists make mistakes is an excuse you're using to justify the verifiability of Misean economics. If the Misean axioms actually existed, they would always be correct since they're building off an axiomatic set.

The fact that they're wrong more than real economists makes their whole claim to be the "true economics" disputable.

Skooma Addict

8th March 2010, 02:31

Icarus, if you have no thought out methodology which you apply to science, how can you have normative opinions on the way science (social or hard) ought to be done?

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 02:54

Skooma Addict

8th March 2010, 03:08

That's a loaded question. Your methodology will change depending on what science your in. Also, it's debatable to what extent there is a methodology for social science. Political science studies the distribution of social resources in a society and who controls them, and maybe their motivations. Even if it worked out an efficient method not everybody would agree that it is the "freest" choice, or that other possibilities perhaps operating under different scenarios wouldn't also be just as good, etc...

I'm not a scientist so I have no opinion on how they carry out their methodology.

This has no relevance to logic. Scientists themselves do not start out with a series of axioms, either. They construct models, some more accurate than others, which is what economists should be doing. There is a big difference between the abstract mathematical concepts of the limit and applying a formula to predict when a ball will hit the ground.

It is in no way a loaded question. I agree that methodology should change depending on the science (this alone says little however), even though many people think otherwise. So do you have any criteria to differentiate meaningful/scientific claims from meaningless/pseudo-scientific ones? I am sure that you have opinions on how scientists should carry out their methodology. It would be pretty strange if you didn't. If you really don't, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on when you call something unscientific.

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 19:17

Left-Reasoning

8th March 2010, 19:22

Praxeology is not useful nor has it ever contributed anything to humanity. Economics ONLY can determine the effects of trade among people and the results of how resources are used. That is the definition of the field. It doesn't say anything about the human mind.

Praxeology is a branch of logic. Economics, or catallactics, is a branch of Praxeology. It is the study of the operation of the market based on the value scales of individual agents.

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 20:06

economics is a branch of political science not a branch of "human action." For example, you could have political system A, and an economist would study the effects of trade in this system, and then you could have political system B, and the economist's whole perspective would be changed. He could compare the two systems as well, but he couldn't tell you which one was freer. I imagine, though ,that some people believe economics and political science are closely related or the same thing.

Logic is a branch of mathematics. Praxeology has nothing to do with either. If praxeology was a branch of logic you'd have no trouble showing your "Misean axioms."

We know from game theory that most of Mises beliefs are contradicted so there is no reason to study it.

Skooma Addict

8th March 2010, 20:38

My opinion on science is irrelevant.

You and John Jordan gave nothing that even resembles a piece of evidence for your misean axioms. Believing in something that you can't show exists or is relevant is the hallmark of pseudo-scientists.

You should be treated as a pseudo-scientist, and a primativist who rejects what is now known about logic.

Your opinion on science is not irrelevant when you make claims about what differentiates real science from pseudo-science. If you aren't going to defend any kind of criteria for what methodology ought to be followed by the hard/social sciences, then there is no reason to care whether or not you think something is scientific or meaningful. I am starting to think you just haven't given the subject any thought.

economics is a branch of political science not a branch of "human action." For example, you could have political system A, and an economist would study the effects of trade in this system, and then you could have political system B, and the economist's whole perspective would be changed. He could compare the two systems as well, but he couldn't tell you which one was freer. I imagine, though ,that some people believe economics and political science are closely related or the same thing.

Logic is a branch of mathematics. Praxeology has nothing to do with either. If praxeology was a branch of logic you'd have no trouble showing your "Misean axioms."

We know from game theory that most of Mises beliefs are contradicted so there is no reason to study it.

Given that you have shown multiple times that you are uninformed when it comes to Mises' axioms, I will have to assume the same is true regarding game theory. If his axioms are as bad as you claim, then you should have no trouble explaining what other reason there is for meaningful action besides the attempt to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory one.

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 20:44

Zanthorus

8th March 2010, 20:46

Praxeology is a branch of logic.

Debatable. In fact, although Rosa's posting style does give me a bit of a headache, I'd like to see her take on Misesean economics. Since she has a bit of a vendetta against apriorism that could be interesting...

Economics, or catallactics, is a branch of Praxeology. It is the study of the operation of the market based on the value scales of individual agents.

economics is a branch of political science not a branch of "human action."

Have to agree with IcarusAngel here. Economics is a social science. Hence my main problem with Austrian economicsbeing it's extreme methodological individualism which is insufficient when studying human behaviour in the aggregate.

I mean, take for example the economic theory of consumer satisfaction as having decreasing marginal utility. Lets also assume that the Austrian assumption that this is true a priori because humans will naturally put the first unit of a good towards satisfying their most pressing need, and the second to the second most etc even though this is contradicted by psychological studies into consumer behaviour (See here (http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec02/nobel.aspx) for example).

Even if this view of consumer behaviour is true a priori it only explains the behaviour of each individual and not the aggregate behaviour of the market. The latter can only be explained in terms of existing social conditions/structures and can't be inferred from a priori reasoning. So even if the basis of Austrian economics is true it's only half of the picture.

Skooma Addict

8th March 2010, 20:53

Game theory has proven numerous times in different scenarios that cooperative strategies are the most effective. The fundamentals of tit-for-tat in a simulated environment are not difficult to understand and I could write such a program myself.

I think the game of life as well shows the need for cooperation. Because a cell cannot survive on its own, and his existence depends on his neighbors and their ability to exist (to help him). I've written several programs that are along these lines in computer science and all of them are based on mathematical principles where cooperation (not competition) is important. In fact competition hinders advancement.

Game theory is only useful in certain situations, and I don't think that you merely declaring that game theory proves "cooperative strategies" (vague) are the most effective (at what?) is an actual argument.

I agree that you need cooperation to achieve higher living conditions. This hardly requires game theory to understand.

What have you ever worked on that's related to game theory?

I don't know what you mean by this. I read some stuff on game theory for some of my classes. As for actual work, I had to use it for a few business projects.

By the way, until you actually develop any kind of criteria for what methodology the social/hard sciences ought to follow, I am going to dismiss offhand all of your attempts to label any Austrian claim as unscientific.

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 20:57

Skooma Addict

8th March 2010, 21:05

I meant work that could demonstrate something.

I already gave you evidence that humans act for reasons other than their "ratioanlism." You merely claimed that scientists "didn't all agree with this" with no evidence. I'm not going to go over it all again.

The axiomatic approach of Miseans is basically 15th century economic thinking form the school of Salamanca. Forgive me for not taking it seriously.

All I remember is you listing stuff that only had to do with the psychological aspects of what causes people to act. Praxeology is not concerned about this. As for other reasons for action, Mises was only concerned about "meaningful action." For all your talk about how illogical Mises' axiom is, you just refuse to argue against it in this thread whenever I give you the opportunity.

How you connect Mises' method with the School of Salamanca is beyond me. As I said, it doesn't matter if you take it seriously because you have no methodology which you apply to the social/hard sciences.

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 21:09

That shows you know nothing about economists. I asked my friend about your posts and he said the same thing.. The school of Salmanca is very similar to the Austrian methodology.

And I quoted one of the best neuroscientists in the world. You couldn't refute it so you reverted back to your misean axioms.

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 21:17

In fact, even your pseudo-intellectual hero Rothbard said the same thing. He said the Salamanca school were " proto-Austrians." You obviously know nothing about economics or the history of economics and every thing you say must be taken with a grain of scepticism due to you not having been in calculus.

Anyway I got some real math to study.

IcarusAngel out.

Skooma Addict

8th March 2010, 21:21

That shows you know nothing about economists. I asked my friend about your posts and he said the same thing.. The school of Salmanca is very similar to the Austrian methodology.My bad. If "your friend" says something it must be correct. How is the school of Salamanca very similar to Austrian methodology?

And I quoted one of the best neuroscientists in the world. You couldn't refute it so you reverted back to your misean axioms. I already addressed this earlier in this thread.

So far we have not a single argument from you in this thread, nor do we have any reasons whatsoever to to accept what you view as a legitimate scientific/meaningful claim.

I will help you out. At least read Theory and Reality by Peter Godfrey-Smith and then get back to me. The book is understandable to anyone who puts the effort into it, and it isn't too long.

Edit:

In fact, even your pseudo-intellectual hero Rothbard said the same thing. He said the Salamanca school were " proto-Austrians." You obviously know nothing about economics or the history of economics and every thing you say must be taken with a grain of scepticism due to you not having been in calculus.Rothbard overemphasized the connection. Most Austrians would agree. I also don't know what your obsession is with calculus. I am taking it next semester though, so I hope you are proud.

Havet

8th March 2010, 21:25

How is the school of Salamanca very similar to Austrian methodology?

Apparently both schools enjoy a fine dance of flamenco after a heavy discussion xD

On a serious note, there is no "source" on wikipedia to back their own statement that:

"Although there does not appear to be any direct influence, the economic thought of the School of Salamanca is in many ways similar to that of the Austrian School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School). Murray Rothbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard) referred to them as proto-Austrians."

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 21:35

The school of Salamanca applies the same rationalist thinking that the Miseans do. They operated under a closed system, just like Austrian economists, whereas real economics is "open" just like the scientific method.

David Hume and other philosophers showed the flaws of purely a prioristic reasoning way back.

Rothbard was influenced by the school of Salamanca and even considered the predecessor to his methodology.

As for calculus, it is required to know anything about economics, Calc I -III. If you can't even do calculus obviously you know nothing about physics, science, economics, etc., Math is require for any science, and without it you're obviously incapable of making any serious analys.

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 21:38

Oh yes. And of course I would take the opinion of someone who actually has a degree in economics over someone who is not even studying economics in the first place, and has an obsession with methods he is unable to even apply. Considering the verifiability of your sources is very important for anyone in either the social sciences or hard sciences.

Skooma Addict

8th March 2010, 21:43

I thought you had math to study for?

The school of Salamanca applies the same rationalist thinking that the Miseans do. They operated under a closed system, just like Austrian economists, whereas real economics is "open" just like the scientific method.

Oh wow, they both incorporated elements of rationalism into their theories. Holy cow, they are so similar.

David Hume and other philosophers showed the flaws of purely a prioristic reasoning way back.

Well if you want to present an argument then go ahead.

As for calculus, it is required to know anything about economics, Calc I -III. If you can't even do calculus obviously you know nothing about physics, science, economics, etc., Math is require for any science, and without it you're obviously incapable of making any serious analys.

Given that you don't know anything about economics, I don't see why anyone should believe your (false) assertion that calculus is required to know anything about economics.

Also, remember to read that book I recommended.

Havet

8th March 2010, 21:43

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 21:55

Given that you don't know anything about economics, I don't see why anyone should believe your (false) assertion that calculus is required to know anything about economics.

Explain how you study economics without calculus. Even for basic modeling derivatives are required.

The only "economics" available to you is Misean economics which uses unprovable statements and words to prove Mises' opinions on a variety of topics. No math required.

In reality, the only real use of economics is as a mathematical modeling discipline, which requires calculus due to it being dynamic rather than static.

Also, remember to read that book I recommended.

Why do you even bring up the scientific method if you can't even use it?

But my views on the scientific method are basically Russellian.

Zanthorus

8th March 2010, 22:15

I realise this is sort of shooting at my own side but:

As for calculus, it is required to know anything about economics, Calc I -III. If you can't even do calculus obviously you know nothing about physics, science, economics, etc., Math is require for any science, and without it you're obviously incapable of making any serious analys.

Sorry but this is just plain false. The main problem with mainstream economics is that it is obsessed with mathematical formalism and eschews real world analysis. Now there's nothing wrong with using mathematics to understand economics but economic phenomena are primarily social phenomena and now matter how many indifference curves you use you can't explain social relationships without good old fashioned written/spoken language.

If memory serves John Maynard Keynes argued precisely the same points, although it wouldn't matter if I or Von Mises or Engelbert Humperdick was the first person to say this because just because something isn't in the mainstream or is considered the equivalent of creationism in it's particular field doesn't mean it's logically wrong and although I agree with you on most points you'd make your case better by showing why Mises axioms are logically deficient instead of ranting on about how it's related to the school of slamanca and is outside the mainstream.

Marxism is outside the mainstream, Post-Keynesianism is outside the mainstream, anarcho-communism is way outside the mainstream. If we wanted to rely on what was in the mainstream we'd all be centrist liberals talking about how fantastic the winners of the X-factor were.

Havet

8th March 2010, 22:19

I realise this is sort of shooting at my own side but:

Sorry but this is just plain false. The main problem with mainstream economics is that it is obsessed with mathematical formalism and eschews real world analysis. Now there's nothing wrong with using mathematics to understand economics but economic phenomena are primarily social phenomena and now matter how many indifference curves you use you can't explain social relationships without good old fashioned written/spoken language.

If memory serves John Maynard Keynes argued precisely the same points, although it wouldn't matter if I or Von Mises or Engelbert Humperdick was the first person to say this because just because something isn't in the mainstream or is considered the equivalent of creationism in it's particular field doesn't mean it's logically wrong and although I agree with you on most points you'd make your case better by showing why Mises axioms are logically deficient instead of ranting on about how it's related to the school of slamanca and is outside the mainstream.

Marxism is outside the mainstream, Post-Keynesianism is outside the mainstream, anarcho-communism is way outside the mainstream. If we wanted to rely on what was in the mainstream we'd all be centrist liberals talking about how fantastic the winners of the X-factor were.

Good post. By the way, I have a question. I'm not aware of mises axioms (besides the one that claims that humans act...lol), so what axioms are there exactly, and why would you consider them logically deficient?

Zanthorus

8th March 2010, 22:32

Good post. By the way, I have a question. I'm not aware of mises axioms (besides the one that claims that humans act...lol), so what axioms are there exactly, and why would you consider them logically deficient?

If memory serves Von Mises initial claim actually wasn't "Humans act" but "Humans action is purposeful behaviour" (Which is what, according to Von Mises, distuinguishes it from unconscious biological processes).

I take issue with some of the stuff like Imputation and the whole "means get their value from the value of the ends" which seems just plain wrong to me.

I'm also naturally suspicious of any methodology that claims to be able to draw conclusions without recourse to the real world, see for example my post on the last page about the economic theory of the consumer.

I also think that even if Von Mises was correct in thinking that he had deduced the logical structure of human action, it's only really half of the story. In fact, given some of the disputes between austrian economists, it's not entirely unwarranted to say that the austrians could have failed to realise the real conclusions of their own methodology (Maybe Misesean axioms even lead logically to communism! :lol: ). A lot of past austrian economists have been ideologically comitted to capitalism. So it would be interesting to see what conclusions a disinterested and/or left-wing enthusiast of Praxeology could do.

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 22:43

I think Keynes was talking about the highly abstract and unhelpful models, not the use of calculus. Galbraith said the same thing.

But if I wanted to model the quadratic model for the number of motor homes sold over the years (in order to glean new information), I would set A = v(t) / n(t) where t is the year and where v equals millions of dollars. To get more information I would take the derivative of this function.

This is basically the use of economics. Misean economics isn't really even economics but a political science position.

Also, I would prefer highly abstract physical models to axioms that cannot be shown to even exist, and do not lead us anywhere.

Left-Reasoning

8th March 2010, 22:50

(Maybe Misesean axioms even lead logically to communism! :lol: ).

Praxeology is value-free. It therefore cannot say that communism is more moral than capitalism or vice-verse.

Zanthorus

8th March 2010, 22:53

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 22:55

If memory serves John Maynard Keynes argued precisely the same points, although it wouldn't matter if I or Von Mises or Engelbert Humperdick was the first person to say this because just because something isn't in the mainstream or is considered the equivalent of creationism in it's particular field doesn't mean it's logically wrong and although I agree with you on most points you'd make your case better by showing why Mises axioms are logically deficient instead of ranting on about how it's related to the school of slamanca and is outside the mainstream.

Basic mathematical theory would indicate that there is no way to "prove" misean axioms "wrong," nor could you prove the existence of God or pink fairies wrong. That's the beauty of the Misean axioms from their perspective. Their axioms are not axioms but opinions on human nature.

Also, it's important to note where it comes from because it is basically a philosophically rationalist position that is enclosed and not open to data. If you read the wiki article on the Salamanca school you notice that they had similar beliefs on private property that comes from their own dogma. Most economists rightly shun this.

Miseans employ the use of trickery: they have a philosophical position that they want you to debunk with modern economics. The only thing you can do is show why their thinking is flawed and Nozick, Popper and others showed this quite well and even Brian Caplan has taken issue with their philosophical statements and has argued against them.

IcarusAngel

8th March 2010, 22:58

IcarusAngel:

Explain how mathematics/calculus is needed to understand:

Diminishing Marginal Utility
Marginal Productivity Theory
The Subjective Theory of Value
The Labour Theory of Value
Surplus Value
The Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall

Just off the top of my head.

EDIT:

Well, mathematics would be needed to prove the labor theory of value and Marx employed the use of math while explaining this theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

(As you can see calculus is needed to understand it fully.)

Surplus value also requires the use of mathematics because you're attempting to calculate the portion of the wages that the capitalists "stole" from your work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_product

Clearly, this as well depends on the changing values of x and y which requires calculus.

In fact, everything you just posted would best be understood in the context of calculus.

Skooma Addict

9th March 2010, 00:16

Explain how you study economics without calculus. Even for basic modeling derivatives are required.

The only "economics" available to you is Misean economics which uses unprovable statements and words to prove Mises' opinions on a variety of topics. No math required.

In reality, the only real use of economics is as a mathematical modeling discipline, which requires calculus due to it being dynamic rather than static.It is quite easy to understand many economic concepts without the use of calculus. I don't need to use calculus to understand the STV or PPfs for example.

Mathematics is only useful if you apply it in the correct area.

Why do you even bring up the scientific method if you can't even use it?

But my views on the scientific method are basically Russellian.
What do you mean I can't use the scientific method? Which scientific method are you talking about?

Explain your beliefs in more detail rather than saying that you are "basically Russellian."

I can only take this for so long Icarus before I just lose hope and call it quits.

IcarusAngel

9th March 2010, 04:44

Unlike you I have the utmost respect for scientists. I think the level of rigor that they're forced to maintain is why there are so few right-wing kooks of your variety that are in science. My view is that the science I study and understand has been clearly shown to work in the real world and has been proven hundreds of times.

Russell's view on science is all over the place, often it is hosted on computer scientists' web pages due to the fact he is adored for his work in logic and his opinions on science. I've linked them several times.

Pseudo-science, your method, has defining characteristics. So, even though I refuse to tell scientists how to do their work, I can spot pseudo-science when I see it. In prescientific times attepts to harness nature meant forcing nature against her will. Nature was subjugated, usually with a form of magic or by means that were above nature - i.e. supernatural. Science does just the opposite, and it works with nature's laws. The old ways unfortunately persist in areas such as Misean economics and invalid a priori reasoning and in voodooism and so on. This is pseudoscience. The hallmark of pseudoscience is that it lacks the key ingredients of evidence and having a test for wrongness. In the realm of pseudo-science , skepticism is ignored and tests for wrongness are ignored.

This is why you, hayenmill and John Jordan cannot even explain your beliefs, let alone prove them. This is why you reject calculus and try and tailor it to Misean beliefs - like your absurd claim above - instead of looking at the results and tailoring your belief to those results. This is also why John Jordan has never heard of David Hume or his belief - which is similar to my own - that only mathematical statements and theorems can be a priori and that they are proven within the system. Vague statements like "human action" would be considered "nonsense," as Wittgenstein put it.

Skooma Addict

9th March 2010, 05:19

There are just so many things wrong here that it needs to be broken down into parts.

Unlike you I have the utmost respect for scientists. I think the level of rigor that they're forced to maintain is why there are so few right-wing kooks of your variety that are in science. My view is that the science I study and understand has been clearly shown to work in the real world and has been proven hundreds of times. Just you rambling and not making an actual point.

Russell's view on science is all over the place, often it is hosted on computer scientists' web pages due to the fact he is adored for his work in logic and his opinions on science. I've linked them several times.Well I haven't seen the relevant links. It is clearly obvious that you are purposely not stating your beliefs on the matter. I want something specific, namely what methodology you subscribe to, not your personal opinion on science as a whole.

Pseudo-science, your method, has defining characteristics. So, even though I refuse to tell scientists how to do their work, I can spot pseudo-science when I see it. In prescientific times attepts to harness nature meant forcing nature against her will. Nature was subjugated, usually with a form of magic or by means that were above nature - i.e. supernatural. Science does just the opposite, and it works with nature's laws. The old ways unfortunately persist in areas such as Misean economics and invalid a priori reasoning and in voodooism and so on. This is pseudoscience. The hallmark of pseudoscience is that it lacks the key ingredients of evidence and having a test for wrongness. In the realm of pseudo-science , skepticism is ignored and tests for wrongness are ignored.As I said, I will dismiss offhand all of your attempts to label anything as pseudo-science until you provide me with actual criteria. Although you do make a point at the very end of your incoherent rambling. You say....

"The hallmark of pseudoscience is that it lacks the key ingredients of evidence and having a test for wrongness. In the realm of pseudo-science , skepticism is ignored and tests for wrongness are ignored."

So you think that in order for something to be scientific it must be tested for "wrongness?" Or do you think that it must in principal be able to be tested for "wrongness(falsifiable)?" Both views are wrong.

This is why you, hayenmill and John Jordan cannot even explain your beliefs, let alone prove them. This is why you reject calculus and try and tailor it to Misean beliefs - like your absurd claim above - instead of looking at the results and tailoring your belief to those results. This is also why John Jordan has never heard of David Hume or his belief - which is similar to my own - that only mathematical statements and theorems can be a priori and that they are proven within the system. Vague statements like "human action" would be considered "nonsense," as Wittgenstein put it.I don't know what you mean when you say I reject calculus. As for Wittgenstien, Long uses arguments provided by him to support Mises' axiom. Unlike you, I can explain my beliefs perfectly fine. Here is what I believe...

I think it is debatable whether or not Mises' axiom is a true synthetic a priori proposition. On the one hand, I cannot imagine any other reason for meaningful action besides the attempt to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory one. On the other hand, the axiom sometimes comes off as promoting a dualistic mind/brain dichotomy which I reject, and it isn't clear yet what exactly the implications of physicalism are. Regardless, the action/behavior dichotomy is a reasonable assumption until evidence is found saying otherwise. Praxeology establishes logically necessary boundaries for economic theorizing, even though it is by itself incomplete. It is also useful for framing questions and getting the right research. I also agree with Hayek that human behavior is of such complexity that an attempt to build an accurate model based on post-hoc statistical analysis that holds over time is doomed to failure.

Now once you inform yourself on the topic I will let you know my beliefs regarding methodology (a certain mix of methodological pluralism with naturalism). You really should read that book.

IcarusAngel

9th March 2010, 05:55

There are just so many things wrong here that it needs to be broken down into parts.

Yet, you fail to prove anything "wrong."

Just you rambling and not making an actual point.

The point was your whacky views and lack of rigor rightly prevents you from ever being a scientist.

Well I haven't seen the relevant links.

Not my problem if you cannot manipulate databases.

As I said, I will dismiss offhand all of your attempts to label anything as pseudo-science until you provide me with actual criteria. Although you do make a point at the very end of your incoherent rambling. You say....

"The hallmark of pseudoscience is that it lacks the key ingredients of evidence and having a test for wrongness. In the realm of pseudo-science , skepticism is ignored and tests for wrongness are ignored."

So you think that in order for something to be scientific it must be tested for "wrongness?" Or do you think that it must in principal be able to be tested for "wrongness(falsifiable)?" Both views are wrong.

My view is from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

If you disagree, I don't really care. Also, scientific theories are indeed capable of being proven false.

I think it is debatable whether or not Mises' axiom is a true synthetic a priori proposition. On the one hand, I cannot imagine any other reason for meaningful action besides the attempt to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory one.

And this is a stupid belief. Humans act for a variety of reasons. Conscious actions are often driven by forces that we are not aware of, and so could never be said to be fully rational. Also, when I make rational decisions I am not attempting to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory one. Humans act on what is most logical, not necessarily on what will bring them the most happiness. People often put themselves in complicated situations for the benefit of others to the detriment of themselves.

You basically hold an opinion that you cannot proven so you just claim it is an "axiom."

Praxeology establishes logically necessary boundaries for economic theorizing, even though it is by itself incomplete. It is also useful for framing questions and getting the right research. I also agree with Hayek that human behavior is of such complexity that an attempt to build an accurate model based on post-hoc statistical analysis that holds over time is doomed to failure.

Praxeology is also a load of nonsense. The only "boundries" that are needed are what will provide humans with the most freedom, and the most productive methods. This is a political science question, not a psychological one. Praxeology makes things up about human nature in an attempt to deny the possibility that other systems exist. Like the foundations of Misean economics it also has no evidence.

LeftSideDown

9th March 2010, 05:58

Between this and the kamikaze into the IRS building...I think things are heating up and we're going to see more of this before the year is over.

He was also bipolar.

Havet

9th March 2010, 09:39

Also, scientific theories are indeed capable of being proven false.

Except Anthropogenic Global Warming theory...:rolleyes:

LeftSideDown

9th March 2010, 09:41

And this is a stupid belief. Humans act for a variety of reasons. Conscious actions are often driven by forces that we are not aware of, and so could never be said to be fully rational. Also, when I make rational decisions I am not attempting to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory one. Humans act on what is most logical, not necessarily on what will bring them the most happiness. People often put themselves in complicated situations for the benefit of others to the detriment of themselves.

You basically hold an opinion that you cannot proven so you just claim it is an "axiom."

Praxeology is also a load of nonsense. The only "boundries" that are needed are what will provide humans with the most freedom, and the most productive methods. This is a political science question, not a psychological one. Praxeology makes things up about human nature in an attempt to deny the possibility that other systems exist. Like the foundations of Misean economics it also has no evidence.

Who cares if it is "fully" rational, whatever that is. As long as it is rational at all, you can say there is a rational basis. It is rational, to say, drive a car off a cliff, if at the time you thought it'd be a good idea. The "rationale" behind it was essentially that you thought the benefit of driving the cliff of the car was worth more than the car. If we take that: "Conscious actions are often driven by forces that we are not aware of" is true than all humans act under forces that they aren't aware of and still make rational decisions under these conditions. The premises remains the same. If all humans have some limit imposed on them, in this case rationality in the face of forces we don't know about, than we can essentially say that humans are acting rationally. And you're right, people don't act on what brings them most happiness. What would bring me most happiness would be owning a brand new Porsche (or something, insert whatever you like a lot but can't afford), however if I cannot afford such a car I must make decisions under a condition of scarcity, or what will give me the most satisfaction from what little resources I have. And it does not have to be "logical" what a person chooses, because people often have "illogical" preferences.

Havet

9th March 2010, 09:50

This is why you, hayenmill and John Jordan cannot even explain your beliefs, let alone prove them. This is why you reject calculus and try and tailor it to Misean beliefs - like your absurd claim above - instead of looking at the results and tailoring your belief to those results. This is also why John Jordan has never heard of David Hume or his belief - which is similar to my own - that only mathematical statements and theorems can be a priori and that they are proven within the system. Vague statements like "human action" would be considered "nonsense," as Wittgenstein put it.

Do you think that if you believe that I reject calculus, that it will become true? because I don't...

I always explain my beliefs - and more - I take the trouble to prove them, unlike you, who just talks out of your ass without never providing a source (only after i've begged for it, is when you usually provide it).

Dimentio

9th March 2010, 09:59

IcarusAngel should learn to not attack strawmen...

IcarusAngel

9th March 2010, 18:35

Except Anthropogenic Global Warming theory...:rolleyes:

Global Warming is falsifiable. If it was proven that humans actions are miniscule, then obviously global warming would be proven false. If it was shown that that the temperature is rapidly decreasing in a way that had no connection to global warming - the rate of change was not overall increasing - that would also discredit it.

Do you think that if you believe that I reject calculus, that it will become true? because I don't...

I always explain my beliefs - and more - I take the trouble to prove them,

I've only seen you post vague links, half of which are to people who do not even support your conclusion. Posting a link to someone else's work is not the same as "proving" something.

IcarusAngel

9th March 2010, 18:57

Do you think that if you believe that I reject calculus, that it will become true? because I don't...

Economic modeling is the only purposeful use of economics. Even Milton Friedman agreed that your "axiomatic" approach is nothing more than philosophy, vaguness, mysticism, and produces no useful results. Maybe at the time Mises was writing it was common to make broad political statements and call them "economaical" but now economics is nothing more than a tool, about as useful as statistics, but economsits are wrong more than staticians.

And didn't you claim all mathematics comes from x = x? Which mathematicians have said that in the last 50 years?

Furthermore, functional magnetic resonance imaging has empirically discredited the Misean belief that human beings reason through every problem and pick the most rational ("satisfactory") choice. FMRI allows scientists to be able to see the relationships between the amygdala, the hippocampus, the neocortex, etc.. There are basically two parallel pathways from the eyes to the rest of the brain, and the amygdala gives us the ability to quickly react and respond quickly to threats. Humans use "heuristics" to help us make important decisions that often come from the parts of the brain that we virtually have no control of. That is to say we make "snap judgments" based on our emotional responses rather than considering all options rationally. This is good for capitalism since capitalism is not based on democracy and is based on stimulating these irrational parts of the brain (such as advertising).

It also happens that the areas of the brain that deal with logic and reason are effected by connections to the emotional systems, the areas where reason doesn't play a role, while the reverse is not true. That clearly indicates that there are emotional reasons for our action that were are unconscious of and so it's impossible for human action to merely be based on solely rational decisions. For example, the areas of the brain that deal with emotion do not have the proper "time tags" which is why people suffer from PTSD since they believe that events that happened to them long ago in the past are constantly reoccurring. This happens to everybody not to the effect of people with PTSD.

Notice the claim is "humans act." Not that "humans sometimes act rationally." Notice also that you and LeftBrainDown have no evidence from psychology for your belief, only Misean pseudo-science and logical axioms.It's also been shown people can transfer tramatic events to others and people can feel other's pain but the point is that our mental live is governed by things we are often not conscious of.

Anyway, I didn't say YOU rejected calculus, but that you also vaguely make claims that you cannot back up and are also a pseudoscientist.

IcarusAngel

9th March 2010, 19:05

Who cares if it is "fully" rational, whatever that is. As long as it is rational at all, you can say there is a rational basis. It is rational, to say, drive a car off a cliff, if at the time you thought it'd be a good idea. The "rationale" behind it was essentially that you thought the benefit of driving the cliff of the car was worth more than the car. If we take that: "Conscious actions are often driven by forces that we are not aware of" is true than all humans act under forces that they aren't aware of and still make rational decisions under these conditions. The premises remains the same.

If humans act for reasons that are not rational then not all human action is about rationally which has been discredited due to FMRI technology (and was previously assumed by many psychologists anyway).

Was the Libertarian acting rationally when he tried to kill people? He was not. Was he thinking rationally when he believed the US government is not doing enough to protect property rights? He was not. Perhaps if the Libertarian had read some of my posts he would have discarded his axiomatic views and taken to science.

Rationality only comes from absorbing tons of information and then spending the time to make decisions. Humans aren't designed to only make decisions based on flipping judgments, such as buying a new television or car from the manufacturers limited info. This dilemma could be solved by placing all the resources in the hands of the workers so they are allowed the time and info they need to make decisions.

Otherwise, what you have is economics without math - a conceptual view of things that doesn't help in you day to day life and is probably actually hurtful.

Havet

9th March 2010, 19:07

Global Warming is falsifiable. If it was proven that humans actions are miniscule, then obviously global warming would be proven false. If it was shown that that the temperature is rapidly decreasing in a way that had no connection to global warming - the rate of change was not overall increasing - that would also discredit it.

Define "no connection to global warming"

I've only seen you post vague links, half of which are to people who do not even support your conclusion. Posting a link to someone else's work is not the same as "proving" something.

Posting the link to someone's work who has gathered the proof I required to prove my assertion is actually proving something.

Economic modeling is the only purposeful use of economics. Even Milton Friedman agreed that your "axiomatic" approach is nothing more than philosophy, vaguness, mysticism, and produces no useful results. Maybe at the time Mises was writing it was common to make broad political statements and call them "economaical" but now economics is nothing more than a tool, about as useful as statistics, but economsits are wrong more than staticians.

Dude, what the fuck? For the last fucking time, I DON'T have an axiomatic approach. The only axiom I believe is a=a, but I don't use it to justify ANY of my political beliefs.

And didn't you claim all mathematics comes from x = x? Which mathematicians have said that in the last 50 years?

So?

Furthermore, functional magnetic resonance imaging has empirically discredited the Misean belief that human beings reason through every problem and pick the most rational ("satisfactory") choice. FMRI allows scientists to be able to see the relationships between the amygdala, the hippocampus, the neocortex, etc.. There are basically two parallel pathways from the eyes to the rest of the brain, and the amygdala gives us the ability to quickly react and respond quickly to threats. Humans use "heuristics" to help us make important decisions that often come from the parts of the brain that we virtually have no control of. That is to say we make "snap judgments" based on our emotional responses rather than considering all options rationally. This is good for capitalism since capitalism is not based on democracy and is based on stimulating these irrational parts of the brain (such as advertising).

It also happens that the areas of the brain that deal with logic and reason are effected by connections to the emotional systems, the areas where reason doesn't play a role, while the reverse is not true. That clearly indicates that there are emotional reasons for our action that were are unconscious of and so it's impossible for human action to merely be based on solely rational decisions. For example, the areas of the brain that deal with emotion do not have the proper "time tags" which is why people suffer from PTSD since they believe that events that happened to them long ago in the past are constantly reoccurring. This happens to everybody not to the effect of people with PTSD.

I never claimed that human beings ALWAYS act rationally. You are the living proof of that.

Anyway, I didn't say YOU rejected calculus,

Yes, you did:

This is why you, hayenmill and John Jordan cannot even explain your beliefs, let alone prove them. This is why you reject calculus and try and tailor it to Misean beliefs - like your absurd claim above - instead of looking at the results and tailoring your belief to those results.

You don't even make sense. Why the fuck would I tailor calculus to my hypothetical misean beliefs IF I REJECTED CALCULUS IN THE FIRST PLACE?

IcarusAngel

9th March 2010, 19:19

Why the fuck would I tailor calculus to my hypothetical misean beliefs IF I REJECTED CALCULUS IN THE FIRST PLACE?

"You" refers to an individual, in this case it referred to Olaf. I was making a point about the three of you then I shifted to the second person. You ignore this because you did not take the time to analyze my statement rationally.

hayenmill you get emotional because your beliefs come from emotionalism. Just like the guy who committed this atrocity. The claim that it was just because he had "bipolar" is ridiculous and prejudiced. Many people have bipolar who do not commit any crimes and many people without bipolar, who are normal, do commit crimes.

The guy convinced himself that the US government was violating the property rights of businesses when in fact the US government does everything in its power to protect business rights even going so far as to promote business indoctrination. This is similar to the other Jones' follower who thought the US government was taking their guns away (what "disease" did he have?).

Basically in this case the guy allowed Libertarian rhetoric to pass through the emotional receptors of his brain without verification. He didn't take time to consider other viewpoints or read about political philosophies that contradicted his own. He also had a clear lack of knowledge about history as evidenced by some of his beliefs. It doesn't have to be a "political" issue it could be a religious one as well. Some religious people are dogmatic while others recognize say Russell's argument against christianty they just disagree with it (but there is a level of respect for other views).

Dogmatism is as dangerous as false axioms, really.

Havet

9th March 2010, 19:22

"You" refers to an individual, in this case it referred to Olaf. I was making a point about the three of you then I shifted to the second person. You ignore this because you did not take the time to analyze my statement rationally.

hayenmill you get emotional because your beliefs come from emotionalism. Just like the guy who committed this atrocity. The claim that it was just because he had "bipolar" is ridiculous and prejudiced. Many people have bipolar who do not commit any crimes and many people without bipolar, who are normal, do commit crimes.

The guy convinced himself that the US government was violating the property rights of businesses when in fact the US government does everything in its power to protect business rights even going so far as to promote business indoctrination. This is similar to the other Jones' follower who thought the US government was taking their guns away (what "disease" did he have?).

Basically in this case the guy allowed Libertarian rhetoric to pass through the emotional receptors of his brain without verification. He didn't take time to consider other viewpoints or read about political philosophies that contradicted his own. He also had a clear lack of knowledge about history as evidenced by some of his beliefs. It doesn't have to be a "political" issue it could be a religious one as well. Some religious people are dogmatic while others recognize say Russell's argument against christianty they just disagree with it (but there is a level of respect for other views).

Dogmatism is as dangerous as false axioms, really.

You're hopeless...:rolleyes:

IcarusAngel

9th March 2010, 19:33

Havet

9th March 2010, 19:52

So because I have the audacity to criticize beliefs without evidence (and in fact are contradicted by empirical evidence) I'm "hopeless." That is your dogmatism. You also refesue to back up your statements, right after claiming you "back up everything" because of your dogmatism.

If you had mountains of evidence for your beliefs you wouldn't get so upset when people criticize them.

You are hopeless because:

- You refuse to agknowledge your own words and push the blame to my interpretation. You were NOT talking to Olaf. You said, and I quote again, because you seem to be ignoring your own words:

This is why you, hayenmill and John Jordan cannot even explain your beliefs, let alone prove them. This is why you reject calculus and try and tailor it to Misean beliefs - like your absurd claim above - instead of looking at the results and tailoring your belief to those results

- You compare me to murderers simply because you cannot agknowledge that my "emotionalism" is due to the irrationality which you so proudly spout as knowledge.

- You ALWAYS act on the impression that your words are God's word, without the need of empirical testing and links to prove your assertions. You expect me to believe you on faith? Such level of irrationality coming from a "defender of science" is not possible. Check your premises, you who thinks that me, who always provides links when requested, and even when i'm not requested, is "pseudo-scientific", and you, the know-it-all, is not bound by the laws of logic and rationality required for a rational conversation of us mere mortals.

Dimentio

9th March 2010, 20:04

*grabs popcorn*

Havet

9th March 2010, 20:10

*grabs popcorn*

lol ^^

You prefer salty or sweet?

IcarusAngel

9th March 2010, 20:58

You are hopeless because:

- You refuse to agknowledge your own words and push the blame to my interpretation. You were NOT talking to Olaf. You said, and I quote again, because you seem to be ignoring your own words:

Well, let's diagram it out then (notice how you focus on petty things like this instead of addressing my main arguments which is why I often ignore your troll attempts):

This is why you, hayenmill and John Jordan cannot even explain your beliefs, let alone prove them.

This was the topic sentence of the paragraph, I agree. I was referring to the fact that the three of you have made nonsensical statements without proving them. You (notice how "you" refers only to you, hayenmill, and not to Jordan or Olaf) and your "x = x" insinuation, John Jordan with his "axioms" that he refused to post on the forum, and Olaf with his beliefs. I then said:

This is why you reject calculus and try and tailor it to Misean beliefs...

The use of "you" in this case is a second person personal pronoun. The "audience" if you will is not "you" the reader (that would be the entity "hayenmill" in your case) but Olaf. If I was referring to all three the second sentence would have begun "All three of you...".

For example, if I had said this is why "You, Mises, and Hayek are distortionists... You distort..." It would be clear I started off talking about 3 people but changed emphasis to the single person. If I meant all three I would have used the pronoun "all."

"There we were - all of us - Einstein, Fermi, and I."

It was an exaggeration as Olaf's problem is stating beliefs as facts that he has no evidence for, which is similar to what you do.

- You compare me to murderers simply because you cannot agknowledge that my "emotionalism" is due to the irrationality which you so proudly spout as knowledge.

- You ALWAYS act on the impression that your words are God's word, without the need of empirical testing and links to prove your assertions. You expect me to believe you on faith? Such level of irrationality coming from a "defender of science" is not possible. Check your premises, you who thinks that me, who always provides links when requested, and even when i'm not requested, is "pseudo-scientific", and you, the know-it-all, is not bound by the laws of logic and rationality required for a rational conversation of us mere mortals.

In all actuality, what I'm posting is just what is known in one field or another. So when I post it isn't really "me" talking but the experts in the field. If anything I don't post my personal opinions enough on this forum. I may come off as "thick" only because I have to explain stuff that everybody knows so when you draw it out it seems meaningless but you have to do this when debating rightists.

I did compare you to a murderer and that was extreme, but I am concerned that you surrender your reason to your "political" beliefs, which is dangerous.

As Thomas Jefferson said: "Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monsterous, and, like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind."

The guy didn't do it because he was "bipolar," he did it because he had surrendered his reasoning to his Libertarian views. Bipolar may have contributed to this I agree. And in that sense you are in the same boat as you believe in many "properties" that are not mathematical truisms, and are not based in empricial evidence, but that you take as the truth. This is the same thing religious people do when they believe in god.

This is why Libertarians are so hellbent on dismantling education rather than dismantling corporatism because, again quoting Jefferson, hardly a "leftist," a society where reason isn't left free to combat nonsense is a flawed one.

You are a lost ship at sea, and you're doing what Milton Friedman said you would: vaguely going around looking for pieces of evidence to support your preconceived notions of the world (pathological science). Instead, the FACTS themselves, about politics, economics, social sciences, etc., should be what guides us, and the fact is Libertarian freedom is no more "free" than the current system but actually even worse. So my advice to you would be to get some essays from different philosophers and read them.

Havet

9th March 2010, 21:06

Well, let's diagram it out then (notice how you focus on petty things like this instead of addressing my main arguments which is why I often ignore your troll attempts):

This was the topic sentence of the paragraph, I agree. I was referring to the fact that the three of you have made nonsensical statements without proving them. You (notice how "you" refers only to you, hayenmill, and not to Jordan or Olaf) and your "x = x" insinuation, John Jordan with his "axioms" that he refused to post on the forum, and Olaf with his beliefs. I then said:

The use of "you" in this case is a second person personal pronoun. The "audience" if you will is not "you" the reader (that would be the entity "hayenmill" in your case) but Olaf. If I was referring to all three the second sentence would have begun "All three of you...".

For example, if I had said this is why "You, Mises, and Hayek are distortionists... You distort..." It would be clear I started off talking about 3 people but changed emphasis to the single person. If I meant all three I would have used the pronoun "all."

"There we were - all of us - Einstein, Fermi, and I."

It was an exaggeration as Olaf's problem is stating beliefs as facts that he has no evidence for, which is similar to what you do.

There is no such thing as a "you" that "refers only to X, Y, Z". It is NOT self-evident whom you were talking about, deal with it.

In all actuality, what I'm posting is just what is known in one field or another. So when I post it isn't really "me" talking but the experts in the field. If anything I don't post my personal opinions enough on this forum. I may come off as "thick" only because I have to explain stuff that everybody knows so when you draw it out it seems meaningless but you have to do this when debating rightists.

But why don't you link directly to the articles/papers you are citing the first time you mention the subject? It would save so much time and effort...

I did compare you to a murderer and that was extreme, but I am concerned that you surrender your reason to your "political" beliefs, which is dangerous.

Yes, that is a legitimate concern. But trust me, I have ways of telling when I have lost my reason to my politics (revleft being one of those ways).

The guy didn't do it because he was "bipolar," he did it because he had surrendered his reasoning to his Libertarian views. Bipolar may have contributed to this I agree. And in that sense you are in the same boat as you believe in many "properties" that are not mathematical truisms, and are not based in empricial evidence, but that you take as the truth. This is the same thing religious people do when they believe in god.

What beliefs do I have that are not based in empirical evidence?

You are a lost ship at sea, and you're doing what Milton Friedman said you would: vaguely going around looking for pieces of evidence to support your preconceived notions of the world (pathological science). Instead, the FACTS themselves, about politics, economics, social sciences, etc., should be what guides us, and the fact is Libertarian freedom is no more "free" than the current system but actually even worse. So my advice to you would be to get some essays from different philosophers and read them.

So everything Milton Friedman says is true now? ...

I'm certainly not the one with preconceived notions. If I were I would have long abandoned this forum.

Skooma Addict

9th March 2010, 22:43

The point was your whacky views and lack of rigor rightly prevents you from ever being a scientist.

Just another one of your irrelevant strange tangents I guess.

My view is from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

If you disagree, I don't really care. Also, scientific theories are indeed capable of being proven false.

Once you yourself give me criteria which distinguishes pseudo-science from science, then I will take you seriously. So do you think that the capability of being proven false is what makes something scientific? Something that cannot be proven false is not scientific and hence pseudo-science? Is that what you believe?

And this is a stupid belief. Humans act for a variety of reasons. Conscious actions are often driven by forces that we are not aware of, and so could never be said to be fully rational. Also, when I make rational decisions I am not attempting to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory one. Humans act on what is most logical, not necessarily on what will bring them the most happiness. People often put themselves in complicated situations for the benefit of others to the detriment of themselves.

Mises is only concerned with meaningful action. Actions which are not performed through any kind of rational deliberation are of no concern to him. For example, acts such as breathing or turning a doorknob are of no concern. You are right, people do put themselves in complicated situations for the benefit of others. Now, what reason do they have for doing this other than the attempt to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory one.

Praxeology is also a load of nonsense. The only "boundries" that are needed are what will provide humans with the most freedom, and the most productive methods. This is a political science question, not a psychological one. Praxeology makes things up about human nature in an attempt to deny the possibility that other systems exist. Like the foundations of Misean economics it also has no evidence.

Those aren't boundaries at all. You don't use normative positions to establish logical boundaries to economic theorizing. I can critique Mises' axioms far better than you can.

That clearly indicates that there are emotional reasons for our action that were are unconscious of and so it's impossible for human action to merely be based on solely rational decisions.

Reasons for action which we are completely unconscious of are of no concern for Mises.

Now for the 50th time, explain what methodology you apply to the social/physical sciences.

IcarusAngel

9th March 2010, 23:08

Just another one of your irrelevant strange tangents I guess.

It's not irrelevant. Your mystical beliefs would be accepted by no one outside of Mises forums.

Once you yourself give me criteria which distinguishes pseudo-science from science, then I will take you seriously.

I posted the criteria, and I explained how Mises' "Praxeology" fits the definition of a pseudo-science.

Mises is only concerned with meaningful action.

This makes no sense. Are automatic reactions are meaningful for survival. There is no dichotomy "meaningful action" versus "non-meaningful action."

Actions which are not performed through any kind of rational deliberation are of no concern to him.

Then Mises is an idiot because modern cognitive science shows that ALL of our actions are connected with areas of the brain that provide us with automatic actions, this is why we develop heuristics or short-cuts to solve meaningful problems that we are also not conscious of.

For example, acts such as breathing or turning a doorknob are of no concern.

What? I would claim that breathing and turning a doorknob are of essential concern. And turning a doorknob is part automatic reaction, part learned reaction. A real psychological example is the law of conditioned reflex and so on. These are based on empirical evidence. Your beliefs are scientifically outdated.

You are right, people do put themselves in complicated situations for the benefit of others. Now, what reason do they have for doing this other than the attempt to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory one.

It has nothing to do with or personal satisfactions but for the survival of the species.

Those aren't boundaries at all. You don't use normative positions to establish logical boundaries to economic theorizing. I can critique Mises' axioms far better than you can.

They are the only boundaries for social science. Social science is about how we can make our lives better and how we can have the most effective means of production and so on. It is not a real science and it certainly isn't a science that is based on logical axioms that you cannot even show exist and are ridiculous, and are refuted by empirical evidence. Every thing from social science needs to have empirical testing and examples and evidence from the real world, and this is the framework social scientists work under.

Now for the 50th time, explain what methodology you apply to the social/physical sciences.

Science refers to a collective body of knowledge. Of course I don't have a methodology that would apply to all sciences. I can apply the criteria above to detect pseudo-science.

For example, if someone came along and suggested he was going to write a computer program that solved all problems I would know it would be a fruitless endeavor, like Human Action, for example. This is because it was proven impossible to write such a computer program. (See my signature.) So my methodology for computer science is going to operate under this framework, and in fact does.

Now, of course this has absolutely no relevance to the astronomer because his ultimate goal is different than mine completely, and he will work under his own collective body of knowledge.

As my physics book says there are hundreds of methodologies that are applied to science, so your question is stupid. But there have been specific properties that are developed that pop-up with pseduo-science:

Refusal to take into account empirical evidence (human action); vague beliefs that have no grounding in reality (Misean axioms); a lack of peer review and constant secrecy (Mises.org), and so on.

Skooma Addict

9th March 2010, 23:40

Regarding Mises' axioms, this will be my last response. You clearly do not even know what he believed. Since this is the case, debating you on this topic is a fruitless endeavor.

It's not irrelevant. Your mystical beliefs would be accepted by no one outside of Mises forums.

Actually my beliefs are accepted by quite a few people outside the Mises forums. If it funny though that you said "It is not irrelevant," and then proceed to make another irrelevant remark.

I posted the criteria, and I explained how Mises' "Praxeology" fits the definition of a pseudo-science.

Posting a wiki link doesn't cut it. There is more than one way to classify somthing as pseudo-science, which is why I wanted your beliefs on methodology. But you just won't give them. So I don't see how discussion can continue on this topic either.

This makes no sense. Are automatic reactions are meaningful for survival. There is no dichotomy "meaningful action" versus "non-meaningful action."

Meaningful as in purposeful. If you knew what you were criticizing at all, you would know this. I am not going to give you a lecture on what Mises believed.

Then Mises is an idiot because modern cognitive science shows that ALL of our actions are connected with areas of the brain that provide us with automatic actions, this is why we develop heuristics or short-cuts to solve meaningful problems that we are also not conscious of.

Okay, and the fact that all actions are in some way connected with parts of our brain that provide us with automatic reactions proves what? That humans don't exhibit purposeful action?

What? I would claim that breathing and turning a doorknob are of essential concern. And turning a doorknob is part automatic reaction, part learned reaction. A real psychological example is the law of conditioned reflex and so on. These are based on empirical evidence. Your beliefs are scientifically outdated.

They are not an essential concern because they don't fall under the category of action that Mises was concerned with. Not mine, but your beliefs are outdated. You seem to just subscribe to an elementary model of scientific methodology.

It has nothing to do with or personal satisfactions but for the survival of the species.

You didn't answer my question. Try again.

They are the only boundaries for social science. Social science is about how we can make our lives better and how we can have the most effective means of production and so on. It is not a real science and it certainly isn't a science that is based on logical axioms that you cannot even show exist and are ridiculous, and are refuted by empirical evidence. Every thing from social science needs to have empirical testing and examples and evidence from the real world, and this is the framework social scientists work under.

You don't use normative positions for logical boundaries.

Science refers to a collective body of knowledge. Of course I don't have a methodology that would apply to all sciences. I can apply the criteria above to detect pseudo-science.

So some form of methodological pluralism then.

As my physics book says there are hundreds of methodologies that are applied to science, so your question is stupid.

If it were stupid then people like Carnap, Popper, Quine, Fraassen, ect wouldn't have tried to solve it.

Refusal to take into account empirical evidence (human action); vague beliefs that have no grounding in reality (Misean axioms); a lack of peer review and constant secrecy (Mises.org), and so on.

Refusal to take into account empirical evidence alone does not classify something as pseudoscience. You could make a claim that is scientific in its structure, yet it is not in line with empirical evidence. All it would be is an incorrect scientific claim.

Vague beliefs that have no grounding in reality is not precise enough for a criteria that distinguishes between science and pseudo-science. The basic idea is sound though.

A lack of peer review and constant secrecy? Lol! Yea, you don't know what you are talking about. You can have a perfectly sound scientific claim that is not peer reviewed and is kept secret. You should really read up on the stuff and stop relying on Wikipedia.

I think this is the end of the road for me Icarus. It is clear to me that there is no point in debating you in topics which you don't even remotely grasp.

IcarusAngel

10th March 2010, 00:05

Regarding Mises' axioms, this will be my last response. You clearly do not even know what he believed. Since this is the case, debating you on this topic is a fruitless endeavor.

I have heard your opinions on Mises' axioms and have heard your statements on Mises' actions and can see they clearly contradict reality.

And I still fail to see how you're an "economist" without ever having been through economics 101 yet.

Actually my beliefs are accepted by quite a few people outside the Mises forums. If it funny though that you said "It is not irrelevant," and then proceed to make another irrelevant remark.

I've never heard of a case of anyone applying Mises axioms to discover new information.

Posting a wiki link doesn't cut it. There is more than one way to classify somthing as pseudo-science, which is why I wanted your beliefs on methodology. But you just won't give them. So I don't see how discussion can continue on this topic either.

The wiki link shows the methods scientists use to discover pseudo-science. These are the same reasons I used.

I don't care about your opinions on pseudoscience.

When scientists put you and hayenmill in charge of what is and what isn't science, I'll listen.

Meaningful as in purposeful. If you knew what you were criticizing at all, you would know this. I am not going to give you a lecture on what Mises believed.

So breathing isn't purposeful? And the Axiom is "humans act." That would clearly indicate all actions.

You didn't answer my question. Try again.

You don't use normative positions for logical boundaries.

Economics is not a branch of logic. It is the attempt to use statistics and math to study the effects of trade. "Economics is the social science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences) that studies the production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_theory_basics), distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_%28economics%29), and consumption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_%28economics%29) of goods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_%28economics_and_accounting%29) and services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_%28economics%29)."

Social science != logic.

So some form of methodological pluralism then.

If it were stupid then people like Carnap, Popper, Quine, Fraassen, ect wouldn't have tried to solve it.

And it should be pointed out that none of them came up with an exact method that all scientists are forced to use.

Refusal to take into account empirical evidence alone does not classify something as pseudoscience. You could make a claim that is scientific in its structure, yet it is not in line with empirical evidence. All it would be is an incorrect scientific claim.

This is true because there is evidence for some things that we cannot observe directly. But if the empirical evidence contradicted our beliefs we would have no reason to hold onto these beliefs.

Vague beliefs that have no grounding in reality is not precise enough for a criteria that distinguishes between science and pseudo-science. The basic idea is sound though.

Again when scientists put you - or even the Austrian school - in charge of what is and isn't a science I'll start to care.

A lack of peer review and constant secrecy? Lol! Yea, you don't know what you are talking about. You can have a perfectly sound scientific claim that is not peer reviewed and is kept secret. You should really read up on the stuff and stop relying on Wikipedia.

From my perspective it would be pseudoscience. For example, you could claim the sun is made of cheese and you may have a theory to demonstrate it, but unless you're willing to share it there is no reason to believe your cheese theory.

Supposedly Ferment had a proof for Fermat's last theorem, but he never made his proof available. So if someone claimed the theorem had been proven because of Fermat he would be dabbling in pseudo-science as no one has seen the proof. Most mathematicians now believe he never had such a proof for it.

I think this is the end of the road for me Icarus. It is clear to me that there is no point in debating you in topics which you don't even remotely grasp.

I think I am more interested in application and you are interested in theory, but the problem is you cannot prove your own theories and have no evidence for them, so is there is no reason for anybody to believe what you say.

Havet

10th March 2010, 12:12

Your mystical beliefs...

Careful now, you're starting to sound like an objectivist.

Wolf Larson

16th March 2010, 20:51

I think most of the users here would get really pissed off on such an idiot who would shoot his own cause in the foot. Some people here would probably cheer (as some did with Stack) but most of the users here are not insane (and neither are(?) most of the users on the mises.org forums, I hope).

Yes the people on the Mises forums are in fact insane.

REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL

17th March 2010, 00:43

Just so you know, the guy who flew into the IRS building wasn't a libertarian, he was more likely a socialist.

Minor point but I bet the libertarians are rapidly trying to baptise him (And any other opposition to goverment, or taxes as one of their own.)

LeftSideDown

20th March 2010, 08:25

If humans act for reasons that are not rational then not all human action is about rationally which has been discredited due to FMRI technology (and was previously assumed by many psychologists anyway).

When isn't human action based in rationality? Rationality is subjective.

Was the Libertarian acting rationally when he tried to kill people? He was not. Was he thinking rationally when he believed the US government is not doing enough to protect property rights? He was not. Perhaps if the Libertarian had read some of my posts he would have discarded his axiomatic views and taken to science.

IN his mind he may have been acting rationally. Just because it seems to you that he was not does not mean apriori that he was not. He may have had good reasons in his own mind for believing the things he believed, so rationality cannot be excluded simply by your horror of his actions.

Rationality only comes from absorbing tons of information and then spending the time to make decisions. Humans aren't designed to only make decisions based on flipping judgments, such as buying a new television or car from the manufacturers limited info. This dilemma could be solved by placing all the resources in the hands of the workers so they are allowed the time and info they need to make decisions.

Thats not true at all. Rationality comes from a number a number being able to be represented by a fraction or ratio :cool:. But in all seriousness, thats not true.
Define: Rationality
rationality - the state of having good sense and sound judgment; "his rationality may have been impaired"; "he had to rely less on reason than on rousing their ...
rationality - the quality of being consistent with or based on logic

You can make logical decisions without knowledge. Given the option of a 5 dollar sub and a 4 dollar sub and equal quality, the rational choice for you may be the 4 dollar sub. However, somewhere out there there is a three dollar sub, is your choice any less rational? Hell, even if you chose the 5 dollar sub you could have a rationality for it, such as you hate the owner of the 4 dollar sub-stand. So no, I reject your premise that you need knowledge to be rational.

Otherwise, what you have is economics without math - a conceptual view of things that doesn't help in you day to day life and is probably actually hurtful.

Economics IS, for the most part, without math because there is no unitary scale of values or a unit of value that is universal. You can do cost-benefit analysis on an individual basis, but try it for a group of individuals and you will leave some unsatisfied.

IcarusAngel

22nd March 2010, 20:59

When isn't human action based in rationality? Rationality is subjective.

Maybe in the mind of Miseans it is subjective. But our "rationality" leads us to certain truths about the natural world, mathematics, and so on, and so we can determine when someone is being rational or not.

Of course, all human actions are somewhat subjective to the individual. But society as a whole can help determine if they are rational or not using logic and reason.

IN his mind he may have been acting rationally. Just because it seems to you that he was not does not mean apriori that he was not. He may have had good reasons in his own mind for believing the things he believed, so rationality cannot be excluded simply by your horror of his actions.

In his mind he was acting rationally - maybe, he could have realized he was being irrational and he just didn't care - but by society's standards he was irrational. If society had taken him alive, they would have put him in prison, and they would have been justified in doing so.

Thats not true at all. Rationality comes from a number a number being able to be represented by a fraction or ratio :cool:. But in all seriousness, thats not true.

A number that isn't able to be represented by a fraction or a ratio may be an "irrational" number - which is as real as any other number. It couldn't be a ratioanl, but both irrational and rational numbers are in the set R.

Define: Rationality
rationality - the state of having good sense and sound judgment; "his rationality may have been impaired"; "he had to rely less on reason than on rousing their ...
rationality - the quality of being consistent with or based on logic

"having good sense" = having the knowledge necessary to make informed decision.

"Good sense" is somewhat objective and innate. Our "innate knowledge" is inherently rational since it gives us the ability to exist in this world.

You can make logical decisions without knowledge. Given the option of a 5 dollar sub and a 4 dollar sub and equal quality, the rational choice for you may be the 4 dollar sub. However, somewhere out there there is a three dollar sub, is your choice any less rational? Hell, even if you chose the 5 dollar sub you could have a rationality for it, such as you hate the owner of the 4 dollar sub-stand. So no, I reject your premise that you need knowledge to be rational.

In this case, you know that the 4 dollar sub is cheaper, all other things being equal. You know this because of your knowledge of math, which comes from rationality, and is highly objective - even more objective than science.

All of our knowledge of the "real world" comes from our percepts - which exist because of our senses. My percept of say a table is different than my percept of someone's brain. This is to say that my perception of the table is different than yours, even though the table exists in some physical reality. The fact that I can only perceive your brain, but not go inside of it, shows that my study of knowledge of your mind can only be objective, it cannot be subjective. If you tell me you have a toothache, there is no way I can experience the same pain as you're feeling, although I might have had a similar experience depending upon my state of body. Further still, I might be "seeing" things that don't exist. When I look up at the stars I may be seeing a light on top of a tall building and not realize that it's a light, or might be seeing an airplane or some other object in the air that is flashing. I'm not even sure that I'm seeing anything, and people who are hit in the head often talk about "seeing stars" etc.

So, all knowledge of the physical world is in some sense subjective. All knowledge of mathematics, however, is objective and can be proven using our logic and reason - that is to say our rationality.

Thus, people who do not understand mathematics are being irrational.

Finally, even in the case you cited, the person is merely making the best decision on his given knowledge. If I come to a path in the road, and I'm not sure which way to go, I might choose a path randomly. That doesn't mean I know where I'm going or that I know that it's the "true path," it just means that I have taken the path that I think may be correct given my current knowledge.

People all the time talk decisions they made that they would have done different had they had the proper knowledge.

So not only are you wrong, but you're empirically wrong as well.

LeftSideDown

22nd March 2010, 21:24

Maybe in the mind of Miseans it is subjective. But our "rationality" leads us to certain truths about the natural world, mathematics, and so on, and so we can determine when someone is being rational or not.

No you cannot, you cannot do cost-benefit analysis for other people, therefore you cannot determine if they are being rational or not objectively. All human action is rational, so its foolish for me to even allow the possibility of someone acting irrationally unless they suffer from a mental illness that impedes conscious thought, but even then you could be acting rationally in terms of your sub conscious.

Of course, all human actions are somewhat subjective to the individual. But society as a whole can help determine if they are rational or not using logic and reason.

Society is nothing but a bunch of individuals, and to say a group of individuals cost-benefit analysis is intrinsically superior to a single individuals is not only foolish, but its impossible to prove. You cannot apply logic, boundlessly, to humans because we do not always act logically even if we act rationally.

In his mind he was acting rationally - maybe, he could have realized he was being irrational and he just didn't care - but by society's standards he was irrational. If society had taken him alive, they would have put him in prison, and they would have been justified in doing so.

He could've realized that, in the eyes of society, his actions would seem irrational, but his cost-benefit analysis which he performed by himself proved, at least to him, the benefits were greater than the costs. IF they didn't than he wouldn't have done the action. Since when have we been talking about justifiability? I don't think that came up at all in any of my statements and thats a whole other debate.

"having good sense" = having the knowledge necessary to make informed decision.

"Good sense" is somewhat objective and innate. Our "innate knowledge" is inherently rational since it gives us the ability to exist in this world.

Good sense is not objective. It may make good sense for me to take a shortcut through an alley to shorten my walk, while for another person it may make good sense to walk around to avoid the chance of being mugged. Whose sense is better? If its objective you can decide, if its subjective you cannot. What "innate knowledge"?

In this case, you know that the 4 dollar sub is cheaper, all other things being equal. You know this because of your knowledge of math, which comes from rationality, and is highly objective - even more objective than science.

Math does not come from rationality, it comes from logic and exists outside of human knowledge. I will agree that math is objective (unless you start talking about extremely high math where you deal with things I can't even imagine). The only reason I gave them different prices was to show that math is not the only thing that goes into cost-benefit analysis; some things lay outside the realm of the logical.

All of our knowledge of the "real world" comes from our percepts - which exist because of our senses. My percept of say a table is different than my percept of someone's brain. This is to say that my perception of the table is different than yours, even though the table exists in some physical reality. The fact that I can only perceive your brain, but not go inside of it, shows that my study of knowledge of your mind can only be objective, it cannot be subjective. If you tell me you have a toothache, there is no way I can experience the same pain as you're feeling, although I might have had a similar experience depending upon my state of body. Further still, I might be "seeing" things that don't exist. When I look up at the stars I may be seeing a light on top of a tall building and not realize that it's a light, or might be seeing an airplane or some other object in the air that is flashing. I'm not even sure that I'm seeing anything, and people who are hit in the head often talk about "seeing stars" etc.

I don't see what your point is? I guess you're validating my point by showing that we all see things differently, therefore all individuals will differ in their rationality (which was basically my point anyway).

So, all knowledge of the physical world is in some sense subjective. All knowledge of mathematics, however, is objective and can be proven using our logic and reason - that is to say our rationality.

Oh, heres your point. Not all problems in life are mathematical in nature, therefore they are at least somewhat subjective.

Thus, people who do not understand mathematics are being irrational.

Or uninformed... you seem to leave out this possibility.

Finally, even in the case you cited, the person is merely making the best decision on his given knowledge. If I come to a path in the road, and I'm not sure which way to go, I might choose a path randomly. That doesn't mean I know where I'm going or that I know that it's the "true path," it just means that I have taken the path that I think may be correct given my current knowledge.

Its still a rational choice. Its rational no matter how many people choose a different path than you. Its rational regardless of whether the path you chose was right or not. Its rational because, in your head, you thought it was better to rely on randomness than your own human fallibility, i.e. the benefit of choosing "randomly" (which humans really can't do) is greater than the cost of making a conscious decision. Your rationale was sound.

People all the time talk decisions they made that they would have done different had they had the proper knowledge.

So not only are you wrong, but you're empirically wrong as well.

That doesn't matter, at the time they thought they were acting rationally otherwise they would've acted differently. I mean, your point even further illustrates my point, because even an individuals rationality can change given different circumstances. If people's decisions didn't change given a change in circumstances/knowledge, than rationality would be objective i.e. all decisions made by humans are apriori the best decisions that can be made.

I don't think you've proven me wrong, rather further enforced my claims in many cases

IcarusAngel

22nd March 2010, 21:45

No you cannot, you cannot do cost-benefit analysis for other people, therefore you cannot determine if they are being rational or not objectively. All human action is rational, so its foolish for me to even allow the possibility of someone acting irrationally....

All human action is not guided by our supposed "rationally" (which is guided by our knowledge). Some human action comes from our reflexes. Some human action comes from areas of the brain that solely deal with emotion, not rationality.

What you're saying has no basis in scientific evidence.

Society is nothing but a bunch of individuals, and to say a group of individuals cost-benefit analysis is intrinsically superior to a single individuals is not only foolish, but its impossible to prove.

It's "impossible to prove" (as are all scientific theories) but that doesn't mean that we can't attempt to determine rational behavior.

All people generally think they are making the best decisions, that is true, but other people have the right to classify that behavior as "irrational," and people often say "you're being irrational" etc. because they know (or think they know) that the other person is ignoring the data.

He could've realized that, in the eyes of society, his actions would seem irrational, but his cost-benefit analysis which he performed by himself proved, at least to him, the benefits were greater than the costs. IF they didn't than he wouldn't have done the action. Since when have we been talking about justifiability? I don't think that came up at all in any of my statements and thats a whole other debate.

It doesn't matter if he sees his actions as rational or not - society has determined that kind of behavior is irrational.

Good sense is not objective. It may make good sense for me to take a shortcut through an alley to shorten my walk, while for another person it may make good sense to walk around to avoid the chance of being mugged. Whose sense is better? If its objective you can decide, if its subjective you cannot. What "innate knowledge"?

If good sense wasn't objective nobody would ever take anybody's advice. As for "innate knowledge" - it exists in many different forms.

Math does not come from rationality, it comes from logic and exists outside of human knowledge.

I agree that math exists outside of human knowledge in some form, but "human knowledge" is required to learn mathematics.

rationality = "ability to reason." Ability to "reason" gives us the ability to use logic. So logic is a form of rationality, as rationality "pertains to the reasoning powers."

I will agree that math is objective (unless you start talking about extremely high math where you deal with things I can't even imagine). The only reason I gave them different prices was to show that math is not the only thing that goes into cost-benefit analysis; some things lay outside the realm of the logical.

Yes, that "higher level" math certainly is difficult. I do know that at the higher levels of mathematics, new axioms are introduced. I also know that many of the "laws" of algebra are not applied to this higher level of math.

This fact contradicts the Austrian economics beliefs that axioms are universal and are "always true."

This isn't true, even for mathematics.

I don't see what your point is? I guess you're validating my point by showing that we all see things differently, therefore all individuals will differ in their rationality (which was basically my point anyway).

Not exactly. I'm saying that even though everybody has subjective percepts, that we can still come to some agreement about the nature of the world through our data collecting and through corroboration.

That's what "rationalism" is about:

In epistemology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) and in its modern sense, rationalism is "any view appealing to reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason) as a source of knowledge or justification" (Lacey 286).

We appeal to our reason in an attempt to determine the truth, and it's obvious that this has occurred with a great deal of accuracy in physics, even if our perceptual space is entirely "subjective."

Oh, heres your point. Not all problems in life are mathematical in nature, therefore they are at least somewhat subjective.

Agreed.

Its still a rational choice. Its rational no matter how many people choose a different path than you. Its rational regardless of whether the path you chose was right or not. Its rational because, in your head, you thought it was better to rely on randomness than your own human fallibility, i.e. the benefit of choosing "randomly" (which humans really can't do) is greater than the cost of making a conscious decision. Your rationale was sound.

It was a choice. It doesn't have to be a "rational choice."

I don't know why you think that every decision a human must make has to appeal to our "reason." Not only does it sound ridiculous but some areas of the brain have an influence on our actions that have nothing to do with rationality or reason.