I wouldn’t go so far as calling Rothbard “sloppy”, as a historian, in general, but he does have moments.
For example, he gives just about the most one-dimensional, unfair portrayal of Sir Francis Bacon’s thought that one could think of. He claims that Bacon advocated “inchoate fact grubbing”: staring, undiscerning, at a mountain of facts until a theory arises, phoenix-like out of it. This is a gross caricature of Bacon’s proposed method.
My own list would probably look something like this (this is based mostly on only books that I have read; some cover to cover, others in passing):
Rothbard:
Mises:
I am a little wary of Rothbard’s history of thought work too(though it is an entertaining read, and nice to dip into), but what little I have read of Man, Economy and State, especially in light of reading Human Action, has been nothing short of breathtaking.
Others have pointed out that as a historian Rothbard has some flaws (but all agree that his tremendous breadth of scholarship means minor inaccuracies do not detract from the groundbreaking nature of his work).
I’m just wondering if Rothbard’s “sloppyness” or “caricaturing” also extends to his core economics work - e.g. on business cycle theory.
Again, this comes down to writing style and interpretation.
No. Bacon presents a systematic method for dealing with facts. To call him an advocate of “mindless fact-grubbing” is flat-out wrong.
I haven’t read Human Action. I agree with this statement about Man, Economy, & State. I’m reading it now. So far, it is pristine imo—it’s quite baller.
‘No. Bacon presents a systematic method for dealing with facts. To call him an advocate of “mindless fact-grubbing” is flat-out wrong.’
And does this not go against the whole Misesian concept of the necessity of theory in order to interpret facts? To look at facts to derive a theory is preposterous.
It is indeed incorrect for the social sciences, but not for the natural sciences. Anyway, that’s an altogether different matter. I wasn’t saying anything about whether Bacon’s method was correct. I was talking about whether Rothbard’s portrayal of it was correct. And again, it is not.
‘It is indeed incorrect for the social sciences, but not for the natural sciences.’
Really? Then by chance what is the first step of the scientific method? Define the issue and formulate a hypothesis. Now unless facts can produce hypotheses, then it is also incorrect to view the natural sciences as being exempt from the Misesan concept of theory being a necessity for interpretation and dissemination of facts.
‘I was talking about whether Rothbard’s portrayal of it was correct. And again, it is not.’
And if you contemplate the word usage it is a curt but apt phrase. ‘Mindless’ in that it has it place no theory to guide it. Also, do look up the definition of ‘grubbing.’ It relates to the superficial removal of something from earth. Without theory, there is no way to interpret facts therefore causing whatever to be ‘dug up’ to be superficial. Thus ‘mindless fact-grubbing’ is an apt phrase in describing Bacon’s philosophy behind discovery in the sciences.
Really? Then by chance what is the first step of the scientific method? Define the issue and formulate a hypothesis. Now unless facts can produce hypotheses, then it is also incorrect to view the natural sciences as being exempt from the Misesan concept of theory being a necessity for interpretation and dissemination of facts.
This is your second shift of topic. First you shift from whether Rothbard’s characterization of Bacon is accurate to whether Bacon’s method of deriving theory from facts is correct. Now you’re shifting from whether theories can be derived from facts at all to whether said facts must themselves be antecedent to a prior theory, which is an entirely different (and an entirely beside-the-point) question.
Thus ‘mindless fact-grubbing’ is an apt phrase in describing Bacon’s philosophy behind discovery in the sciences.
No, it is not. Here is the relevant Rothbard quote, which shows what he meant by “mindless fact-grubbing”:
“Look at 'the facts’, all ‘the facts’, long enough, he opined, and knowledge, including theoretical knowledge, will rise phoenix-like, self-supporting and self-sustained, out of the mountainous heap of data.” (MNR, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith)
Thus, according to Rothbard, Bacon’s method consisted of literally staring at unsifted data and waiting. Have you read the Novum Organum or anything about about it from any source besides Rothbard? If you had read even the briefest description of it, you would have read something about Bacon’s sifting of data into specific-purpose tables and of his “analysis by exclusion”, the bare existence of which demonstrates the falsity of Rothbard’s characterization. In fact Bacon deliberately formulated his method as distinct from “fact-grubbing”, which he called “ordinary induction”. Ordinary induction is characterized by Bacon himself as proceeding "per enumerationem simplicem" (by a mere enumeration of facts). Far from espousing such a crude method, he wrote specifically against it.
‘This is your second shift of topic. First you shift from whether Rothbard’s characterization of Bacon is accurate to whether Bacon’s method of deriving theory from facts is correct.’
It is not a shift. I merely retort to your comments as they are presented to me. You will notice that in my further statements that I break down the phrase used by Rothbard in example Bacon and show it to be accurate. Something we really cannot do if we do not at least superficially address what Rothbard was criticizing in the first place. Also you stated that the Misesan concept of the necessity of theory in order to interpret facts only apply to the social sciences. This obviously has some dealings with why Rothbard criticized Bacon harshly on his method and made such a characterization. Thus again I can show that A.) your statement about it only apply to the social sciences is false and B.) setup the groundwork as to why Rothbard’s calling of Bacon’s method ‘mindless fact grubbing’ an apt phrase.
‘No, it is not. Here is the relevant Rothbard quote, which shows what he meant by “mindless fact-grubbing”:’
Again, analyze the phrase. Mindless in that it has no guiding theory and fact grubbing in that it searches for and/or finds superficiality in the world.
'Thus, according to Rothbard, Bacon’s method consisted of literally staring at unsifted data and waiting. Have you read theNovum Organum or anything about about it from any source besides Rothbard? ’
I know of Bacon and many other of his ilk through their philosophical outlook on history. He is a man who believes that any introduction of theory places biases on the data. That one must endeavor to look at the human realm with a supposed ‘objectivity’ that can never actually be achieved. He is akin to individuals who think that the Great Depression can be explained by looking at numbers alone.
‘If you had read even the briefest description of it, you would have read something about Bacon’s sifting of data into specific-purpose tables and of his “analysis by exclusion”, the bare existence of which demonstrates the falsity of Rothbard’s characterization’
Ah but how would one exclude data if one had no theory behind it in the first place? How would one know what to exclude without first having a theory to set perimeters? You do Rothbard an injustice if you do not include the portion of his comments in which he specifically states that Bacon himself never followed his own philosophy of facts bringing about theory. It is less then several paragraphs below the quote you have given.
Can you substantiate that in the context of the pure natural sciences?
I’d like to second that request.
There are 2 different issues:
Whether theories can be derived from facts at any link in the chain of derivation (this is what you were arguing before: “To look at facts to derive a theory is preposterous.”)
Whether the chain of derivation must begin with theory (this what you have shifted to arguing now.)
That is the second shift of topic I’m trying to explain to you.
You do Rothbard an injustice if you do not include the portion of his comments in which he specifically states that Bacon himself never followed his own philosophy of facts bringing about theory.
Which passage are you specifically referring to? The one where he faults Bacon for being a methodological writer and not a great scientist himself? Or the one where he tries to paint Bacon as largely a mystic in pro-science clothing? In either case, what does that have to do with Rothbard’s mischaracterization of Bacon’s methodological writing?
Simple fact #1: Rothbard wrote that Bacon advocated just looking at simply-hoarded facts long enough, and that’s it.
Simple fact #2: Bacon wrote against simple fact-hoarding, and advocated a multi-part methodical approach which, whatever its certainly-existent faults are, did NOT consist of simply staring at unsifted facts.
Quite a coincidence: we’re debating this particular Rothbard chapter section now, and just today it’s posted as a Mises Daily.
Let us say we are trying to determine the boiling point of water. And also let us say I ramp up the heat to 500 degrees and the water begins to boil at that temperature. Can it be said that I can theorize that the boiling point of water from the fact that I had the water up to 500 degrees? Further how can I infer properly that the heat is the object boiling the water without theorizing that such is the case? We presuppose many facts because the theory is already in place but if one were to be ignorant to pre-existing facts which have been discovered by pre-existing theorization, then you cannot assume that just because you boil water at a certain degree that you can correctly theorize the boiling point to be 500 degrees.
'1. Whether theories can be derived from facts at any link in the chain of derivation (this is what you were arguing before: “To look at facts to derive a theory is preposterous.”)
One must always start with a theory. That is the whole point of this conversation. You said it applied to social sciences and not natural sciences. My point is that the interpretation of facts demands a theoretical framework in all sciences, not just the social ones. That has been one of my main issues. This and the comments that Rothbard leveled against Bacon who believed that facts can produce theory before theory is in place. That any theory before the facts is a bias.
‘Which passage are you specifically referring to? The one where he faults Bacon for being a methodological writer and not a great scientist himself? Or the one where he tries to paint Bacon as largely a mystic in pro-science clothing? In either case, what does that have to do with Rothbard’s mischaracterization of Bacon’s methodological writing?’
Clearly the portion I was referring to in the text which I stated. The simple premise that you cannot conclude theory from the searching of facts. Theory is necessary beforehand in order to prioritize information and construct / retain the limits of relevant information. If Bacon were true to his philosophy then he would be buried under all the data with no way to eliminate what is and isn’t relevant because that would implied a theoretical framework before the acquisition of data. So far you are only confirming what I am saying in a misguided fashion. You state that Bacon had a methodical approach to data collection. That presupposes some theoretical framework to the gathering and dissemination of facts therefore putting theory before fact.
That creates an infinite regression. Can the first thing which we come up with be just from “mindless fact-grubbing”? If not, I don’t see how we can get out of that infinite regression, and be able to answer any questions at all.
You are misrepresenting what you said, and misinterpreting what I said. At the beginning, you didn’t say “one must always start with a theory” (which is the number 2 item above). You said, precisely this (which, you’ll notice includes nothing about starting the chain of derivation with either facts or theory): “To look at facts to derive a theory is preposterous” (the number 1 item above). THAT is what I said only applies the social sciences, and not to the natural sciences. What I was objecting to is your erroneous statement that at no point in the chain of derivation can natural science proceed from facts (data) to theory.
More to the point, what exactly in the following to you deny?
"Simple fact #1: Rothbard wrote that Bacon advocated just looking at simply-hoarded facts long enough, and that’s it.
Simple fact #2: Bacon wrote against simple fact-hoarding, and advocated a multi-part methodical approach which, whatever its certainly-existent faults are, did NOT consist of simply staring at unsifted facts."