Well, I’d say that’s because I’m used to people making statements of the form “X is the best”, which implies to me that they’re making a claim about objective reality.
No need to waste time reading it. The story is always the same. I went to a forum just to troll and got banned despite my best efforts to be sly and underhanded about it.
Am I the only one who lost track of the discussion somewhere around page 4?
It happens often here.
GEE THANKS!
Now I won’t be able to go around to people’s blogs and anonymously “warn” them about the evil Liberty Student and his banhammer of suffering.It’s like you just told a nation of idiot peasants that there will be no tv for a week. What will the pygmies do without a mindless drama to inspire them?
@Coase, you didnt miss much. Autolykos was pwning DK, and DK was ignoring me because his blog warned him about this website and my “reputation of doom and misery”. There was some piling on after Prateek pranked the chapter of my local fan club, but now all of the air has left the bubble because Lilburne had an attack of reason and sensibility get the better of him.
Has anyone ever made the implication explicit?
So what’s the point of using math, if you can get to the same conclusions without it?
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you do otherwise. My point was that justifying things in terms of math may not satisfiy others (such as Austrians), so they’ll keep asking you for more justification.
Apparently, some people do.
I guess what I’m asking is, how are intersubjective comparisons of utility ever appropriate? Furthermore, if you can reach the same conclusions without using intersubjective comparisions, what’s the point in using them?
First off, what is your definition of “reasonable hypothesis”? Second, why must economics be framed in terms of hypotheses to be tested?
-
What I meant was that it remains to be seen by me. Simply reasserting that it’s a “dead issue” doesn’t convince me of that. Perhaps you don’t care about convincing me, but if so, then I’ll question your entire purpose of being in this thread.
-
I’m still challenging your point.
I have no idea what Autolykos and DK are arguing about.
DK, in case this part was confusing, “Lilburne” was my old handle.
So what’s the point of using math, if you can get to the same conclusions without it?
I want to weigh in on that one because it is a pet peeve of mine. Answer:
It makes the argument more transparent by making the assumptions involved totally explicit. And that is actually a huge productivity improvement for academic economics. Here’s why.
There used to be a cottage industry in economics that dealt exclusively with trying to decipher the writing of previous economists–writing papers that dealt with subjects like “What did Keynes really mean when he said X in the General Theory”. In Austrian economics, you will find this industry still thriving, with papers being routinely published on “what Mises really meant” in works that are almost 70 years old (even my favorite Austrian authors are in on this game: http://www.peterleeson.com/Was_Mises_Right.pdf).
However, in mainstream economics, these types of papers are essentially obsolete for almost any major economist working in the past 50 years. For example, you will never read a paper on “what Peter Diamond really meant in paper X” becuase we know EXACTLY what he meant. Thanks to the simplicity and rigour of mathematics.
So, if you can get the same conclusions in mathematics as “regular english”, the real question is why WOULDN’T you choose to express your arguments in the clearest way possible. Of course, I would argue that because writing in “regular english” so often times leads to sloppy thinking that by making arguments in mathematics we actually reach more robust conclusions than we would other wise.
re: " DK was ignoring me because his blog warned him about this website and my “reputation of doom and misery”."
No, I was ignoring you because you were relentlessly asking pointless questions that I had either already answered or that themselves begged the question about differences in our premises.
I noted that as soon as you baraged me with these questions. You’re the one that’s written half a dozen comments on it since.
re: “I have no idea what Autolykos and DK are arguing about.”
I barely know.
From what I can tell, autolykos read things about objectivity and unconstrained optimization into my comments when I didn’t mention any of that at all. Then he started insisting I defend certain things - some of which were relevant points, some of which were extraneous, despite the fact that he hasn’t put much effort into defending his own premises on math in econ, intersubjective comparisons, constrained optimization, etc.
Student -
Very well put.
When objections are raised its over points like autolykos was making about inter-subjective comparisons, etc. If economics were philosophy this would be an issue. But it’s not. It’s a science of a complex system. You make simplifying assumptions to sketch out a general process that you think is significant, and you test it. You don’t worry about quantitative laws because unlike physics we’re unlikely to get quantitative laws. You don’t worry about a priorism because we’re not doing logic - we’re doing science and we’re trying to get a workable explanation of the world - not a solution to a logic problem.
If you want to do that, go to a philosophy department.
Student,
True, you know precisely what you are talking about, symbols.
However, the q of what do those symbols represent in the real world, how relevant are they to the real world, how useful are the models, what elements of the real world should be symbolized [usual answer is those that can fit into Procustrean bed of solvable equations], those are sloppy but vital things that still need good ole English.
The carpet is too small to hold all those sweepings
Hi DK,
Just curious if you had a chance to read my Misesian methodology article.
“You don’t worry about a priorism because we’re not doing logic - we’re doing science and we’re trying to get a workable explanation of the world - not a solution to a logic problem.”
Well can’t it be said that all human action comes under the guise of logic because it brings with it the necessity of correct reasoning? I mean how you formulate your inferences (whether a priori or a posteriori) makes a huge difference in your conduct does it not?
Is it possible to make explicit examples to clear up what both mean by objective, subjective, constrained and not constrained etc.. ?
skylien -
Since I think we both agree of course I think it would be easier just to say that we’re both talking about subjectivist constrained optimization and if he’s still concerned he can elaborate on why he thinks I’m doing otherwise.
First off, I didn’t actually read things about objectivity and unconstrained optimization into your comments. I suspected those things were implied, and I asked you about them to find out whether you actually implied them. You explained that you didn’t, which was fine with me. I didn’t think there was really any issue here anymore.
Second, I wasn’t aware that you had asked me to defend my own premises. What I’ve been trying to do is understand where you’re coming from. For example, you here again claim that some things we’ve discussed are extraneous. But if I disagree, what then? As I pointed out in an earlier post (which you seem to be ignoring), if you don’t care about helping me to understand your viewpoint, why are you interacting with me at all?
In other words, you’re refusing to make explicit examples of what you mean by those terms. How nice. It’s too bad you couldn’t even be explicit about this refusal.
re: “For example, you here again claim that some things we’ve discussed are extraneous. But if I disagree, what then?”
The problem is I have trouble bridging that disagreement if I’m not clear on why you disagree or why you raised those issues in the first place.
re: “As I pointed out in an earlier post (which you seem to be ignoring), if you don’t care about helping me to understand your viewpoint, why are you interacting with me at all?”
You all post A LOT, and each post has several questions in it, some of which I don’t know how to answer because I don’t understand what you’re driving at ("i.e. - ‘but are there any constraints to the optimization’? I don’t know what to say other than ‘of course’ because I have no sense of why you would think there wouldn’t be). So please, don’t assume I’m ignoring it and if you think it’s absolutely essential to answer, just ask again. I do care - I like interacting with Austrians. But I can’t reargue first principles every time I do. If it’s necessary for clarification, sure.
Speaking of ignored points - Daniel Sanchez - I read the beginning but have not read the whole thing yet. I’ll do my best to try to finish it and perhaps talk about it on my blog.