Current economics divorced from physics, unscientific.

Economics Political Theory
61

Your statement doesn’t make any sense, you said that I was wrong, therefore you read a word or statement that was incorrect, then you should be able to point it out. You’re simply wrong. Consider the argument:

I make a claim, therefore that claims exists, you read that claim (draw it into your mind) therefore you have to take what I say into your mind and detect where the flaw is and your mind can only detect a flaw if there is one (because by definition you said it exists, and you by logical necessity have to no where it is), and you should immediately be able to point it out. The chain of your logic is completely non-sequitor. If logic doesn’t exist then economics is irrational from the outset, period.

Definition of logic for you:

(uncountable) A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved. Logic is the basis of many principles including the scientific method.

If the basis of scientific method is logic then advances in logic have enormous implications for everyone s understanding you can’t even have a single thought without logic, and if you can’t tell me where the error is you have no valid claim, period. I’ve just demonstrated your irrationaity.

62

Sigh. You’ve posited that either one gives you a step-by-step refutation of all this nonsense, or they can’t. That is a false dichotomy. They may not just give a shit, which is the case as it may be. What exactly your rant has to do with anything the other Jon said is beyond me. Get a grip.

-Jon

63

Obvious troll is obvious.

64

Still fun to watch the dolt burn.

-Jon

65

You misunderstand physics, your statement betrays your lack of scientific background, physics is a description of reality, parts of our description of reality work and are partially true, other parts are not fully understood. Think of it as a picture and that becomes fuzzy or more clear depending on the level of the zoom of the lense, this is exactly what science is, we don’t see the whole picture perfectly, but we do see heck of a lot that is for all intents and purposes partially true, else we could not rely on science to tell us anything.

If the world is not ruled by rationality then by definition rationality is impossible and we should pack it in and give up science, That’s exactly what you just said. I really doubt you believe what you just said, the whole of the internet relies on the fact that some of the laws of physics (while we imperfectly understand them) are completely reliable given a conextual frame of reference.

“Is that so hard to understand ? Besides, physics doesn’t explain much - and even worse”

Yeah physics doesn’t explain much, like your car, your computer, the internet, the space ship, the sattelites, the roads, the chemistry of your food… I guess we should just pack up our bags and stop doing science because physics “doesn’t explain much”.

I’m not sure what planet you are from but it is obvious that many of the people here have no scientific background what-so-ever. You’be just denied all the real world “wealth” we’ve created via our understanding of the physical universe.

You keep making mistakes, without logic you can’t even have a single thought. You have to make comparisons (this is not equal to that) to even begin to be rational,

66

You haven’t burned anything you don’t even know how to reason properly, you’re just a petty tribalist who thinks he knows what rationality is, the truth is none of you have demonstrated where the error was in my argument at all which proves that you are trolling me not vice versa. Because you can’t handle someone with greater intellect then yourself because you don’t even know how to expose the errors and flaws in your own thinking. Because this site is about indoctrination into a particular way of thinking about the world, which is based on a mishmash of prejudice, reason, instinct and petty tribal psychology. It’s quite obvious, otherwise any of you would have exposed the error in my statements by now and I would have accepted them gladly, that’s how real science works.

“The task is not so much to see what no one yet has seen, but to think what no body yet has thought about that which everyone sees. … But life is short, and truth works far and lives long: let us speak the truth. (Arthur Schopenhauer, 1818)”

I don’t expect you people to understand me because it’s quite obvious that you’re not rationally capable of grasping what I am saying rationally. So now that we know that you can’t grasp what I am saying, otherwise any of you would have quickly and succinctly pointed out the errors. Which none of you have done because to do so is to open up a can of worms you don’t want to deal with, because it comes too close to exposing falsehoods in your theories of how the world ought to be.

67

Ooh, you quoted Schopenhauer, you MUST be so much smarter than I am!

One word troll: burn.

-Jon

68

Expose the flaw of my argument, and then that claim might be valid. Otherwise: No valid claim. The truth is I was attacked first by a bunch of petty people because they give the false impression they want to be convinced via rational argument but the truth is they have already pre-decided (unconsciously or consciously) what their answers are and that they are perfect and true and have NO interest in changing their views, that is what this thread demonstrates. If it goes against what the people deem and identify here as superior values, and they are not opening to questioning them, then why even bother having a website that proclaims open and rational discourse?

69

Read the books I cited for an in-depth refutation of monist-positivist rants; otherwise: couldn’t be arsed.

-Jon

70

Where does one begin? Your entire reasoning is based on conjecture and emotional appeals for machine logic.

Honestly, I think a good many of us don’t even know where to begin with you. You wander in here with more misconceptions than a Mitt Romney supporter who just found Jesus.

71

Bullshit logic is universal otherwise we couldn’t think or do mathematics, we couldn’t tell up from down, left from right.

Consider the statement:

Do we exist? in order to be able to answer that (yes or no) you must use simple binary logic in your thought processes, so no your non-sequitorial statement does not qualify as an argument, Otherwise you could never answer a question. Proof by contradiction.

That’s because I haven’t made any mistakes but YOU have, you THINK there are mistakes but you have not DEMONSTRATED which words of mine are mistaken, and therein lies the rub, and therein lies the reason why you people are trolling me.

72

Could you point out where he said logic isn’t universal? Could it be that you’re just setting up a strawman? Does having such an immense intellect hinder you from reading what people actually say? It’d seem so.

-Jon

73

OK, I changed my mind. Please ban him.

Just kidding.

Kinda.

I should have quit at face palm.

74

He said “machine logic”, in other words, he tried to say that it was different and “invalid” form of logic. That was the implication “you’re not using the right logic” sorry but he’s just plain simply not thinking.

Like I said consider the statement:

Do you exist? or Are you going to the movies tonight yes/no? That requires binary logic, binary logic is the basis of how we think and understand the world, you can’t even have a single thought without it. I’m trying to demonstrate here that people are not as good thinkers as they seem to think they are, I’ve constnatly asked everyone and submitted myself to the fire of their intellects and they still evade the questions I ask, I open state “OK where am I wrong” and they come up with all kinds of handwaving distractions because they know unconsciously that I’m getting too close to values they do not want to be critical of, if we are not critical of our own values and principles to see if they are in fact rational, what is the point? Is this not a valid point, yes or no? right?

I know because I’ve gone through this process, I’ve run the gamut of idealogy and I ended up being non-idealogical, i.e. seeing that values are not immutable things, but are simply guides that are useful in a given situation and as situation changes (time changes truth) we have to be ready to transform our values and throw them out when they go obsolete, this is a major problem because we all hold our principles tightly to ourselves because we identify with them, the question in the end is: If my principles were imperfect, and possibly fallible/irrational, would I want this exposed? that’s the question too few people (of every idealogy of every stripe) don’t ask themselves, because it’s too uncomfortable for a lot of people and it shakes them up, well that is what learning and reason should ultimately be about: Self improvement.

I think everyone on this forum can agree to that, and you can understand my frustrations not as personal ettacks but at frustrated attempts at communication ideas are not being understood and people are not aware of the flaws of their own thinking, because it takes a lot more time then we are willing to commit, when thats exactly what is needed. We end up truncating our thoughts (i.e. being irrational, and not thorough) because we are not really interested in exposing our own flaws in our own thinking, I used to be like that and thats why I willingly subject myself and ask you people to cough up the errors, I wouldn’t ask or hang around if I wasn’t interested in exposing the flaws in my own reasoning, and having someone demosntrate just exactly where the errors are, each error can be taken independently. Even if I made a small mistsake you definitely have the time to focus on that, but the truth is people think I have made a mistake but they cannot demonstate that I have made one, this is the problem…

There is only one conclusion if someone cannot demonstrate logically the error (yes it is wrong, no it is not), and that is there isn’t any.

75

My question was: where did he say logic is not universal? I did not ask for a rant pertaining to what you think he implied by “machine logic”. You have some serious issues.

-Jon

76

No. I said that physics only applies to the mechanical, material and deterministic world, but humans are not mechanical and deterministic. In case you didn’t notice, you’re not a machine, but a purposeful, self-conscious entity.

Physics helps understanding how those things work, true. Physics can roughly explain how your eye works, but it can’t explain - at all - your subjective experiences - the ghost in the machine, you know.

77

Then read the suggested readings. Rothbard, Etihcs of Liberty. Rothbard, Man, Economy and State. Mises, Human Action. And others. If you’re truly interested in exposing the flaws in your own reasoning, there is no substitute for doing this recommended reading. The demonstrations of your errors lie within.

78

As well as Hollis’ and Nell’s Rational Economic Man and Hoppe’s Economic Science and the Austrian Method, and Mises’ The Epistemological Problems of Economics and The Ultimate Foundation of the Economic Science. They pretty much bury positivism-monism for good. Not to forget Long’s Reason and Value and Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics and the Logic of Action.

-Jon

79

Did you miss out on quantum physics? You’re avoiding the issue thinking you have an argument when you don’t. Physics applies to everything that exists whether you like it or not, consider the statement:

We exist: If we exist then that is an empirical statement, and if it’s empircal, then it’s measurable, and if it’s measurable, its physics. There is no break in the chain of existing things, your consciousness is tied to your neurology. We can demonstrate this by looking at how brain injuries effect a persons funcitoning, I’m sorry you’ve demosntrated you don’t understand, you’re trying to define reality in terms of your own ideas, but while your ideas exist, they are not above objective reality, they are a part of it.

Next we can question whether the concept of subjectivity is even coherent, if you derive your existence from objective reality (matter and energy that existed before you), and your thoughts are derived from your brain, which ultimately is derives from matter and energy, then there is only one conclusion:

There are only three kinds of statements

Is all-objective
Is partially-objective
Is all-not-objective (i.e. non existent entity)

Because any statement has an objective portion (i.e. the statement itself, is a structure that objectively exists, with objectively, existing data, in an objectively existing pattern).

So when we say something is “subjective” we are saying it is partially-objective in the way that the statement exists, but the data is not the right pattern.

An all-not-objective, is total incoherence. (unintelligible).

To demonstrate this:

Is existence truth?
Is truth objective?
Does the truth contain information?
And does it exist?

Seems to me that just because a concept exists in a language does not mean it has any logical coherency or proper 1 to 1 mapping to objective rationality.

Because if we deny the answers to these questions, we know where that leads - contradiction.

80

I don’t need your readings, because you guys should be able to demonstrate it right now, in front of everyone, period. Take an isolated sentence and criticize it. That’s all any damn one of you needed to do, it’s bat shit easy. You claimed that I was WRONG then you should be able to immediately point out even the smallest of flaws or you’re just bullshitting yourselves. I’ll demonstrate every single step in the chain when someone claims someone is wrong and what you must do:

I make a statement, someone claims it is wrong, by definition your claim (or anyones claim) to it being wrong means you (or they) must KNOW what EXACTLY is wrong and where, RIGHT NOW. So guys cough it up. It is required by necessity of logic that you already know! Otherwise your claims to my being in error are wrong by logical necessity, that is the only alternative. Is that you people don’t want to open up that can of worms on your cherished values, so the only answer left is: you’re not really interested in rational discourse anyway! If you cannot show where the error is, then that is the only answer left, and that all of your claims to me being in error are invalid, end of story.