My apologies. I have fixed the formatting.
You demand that I dedicate a couple of my lives to institutional study? I’ve known some hard-core credentialists, but you take it to the level of reincarnation: impressive. [;)]
I am not dismissing it as such; I am arguing that it is such.
As the writer, I don’t want your “trust”. I want you to apply your critical faculties to my argument, and decide for yourself whether it is skewed.
People are confronting Keynesianism on larger fronts than the halls of government and academe. There is a real world, outside the state and academe with billions of constituents who do not have credentials, and particularly in the internet age, have less use for credentialed experts when information is closer at hand.
It begs the question, does a man learn from exposure to knowledge, or does he learn by passing through systems of education? To infer that a PhD conveys more knowledge, or more righteousness and correct knowledge than one who does not have a PhD seems to be an argument to the credential, not the argument itself.
Because it may be correct. Because knowledge is not served by elitism. We tried that. The elitists were co-opted and produce plenty of bad science and ideas to serve those who pay their bills. You see liberty as being some sort of dirty populism, but I see it as the natural decentralization of privilege, whether it is money from privilege, status, opportunity etc. Decentralization is the root of truth and creativity, not the dogmatic pursuit of status and recognition.
I care not for what title some fop is ennobled with by the state and its institutions but the character of his mind and heart.
Ideas, not titles, are what has always mattered.
So says, laminustacitus
Economics, exchange, commerce, human action, is something we all engage in, and is not beyond the understanding of the people actually engaging in it each day. Your comments remind me of how Ron Paul has described the paternalistic perspectives of some of his associates in Congress. They actually believe people are not smart enough to act, and make decisions for themselves, absence the guiding hand and wisdom of the intelligensia.
I’m done, my apologies lilburne. I have no desire to turn your discussion into a circus.
Excellent.
What can I say? I have harsh expectations on reincarnating intellectuals. 
On a serious note, edit: a couple years of your life.
In all seriousness, I do like sophistry, but it is still a ridiculous argument that could use a rhetorical tone-down.
The problem is though is that readers are not experts, rather they are desiring to get as much information on the topic as possible. Most do not have enough experience in the discussed topic to have enough knowledge to apply their critical facilities; rather, they need to rely on your quotations, citations, and on their trust on the author himself. No matter how intelligent the reader is, I doubt that they have read Keynes’ General Theory; therefore, they are trusting that you are speaking the truth about the book, and that you are not twisting Keynes’ words out of context.
As much as we would like to believe that all of our knowledge is based upon a critical evaluation of theories, facts, and principles, and that our knowledge, to use Kant’s dichtomoy from his Introduction to Logic, rational. But much of it is not, and we often take the opinions of other men to be the truth, not because we are too lazy to analyze the situation ourselves, but because we have neither to time, nor the expertise the analyze the situation for ourselves. For instance, I have never read Keynes’ General Theory, but I believe that the economics contained in it are erroneous primarilly because of Hayek’s, and Mises’ own works done contra Keynes. Surely, most of my opinion against Keynes can be boiled down to principles, such as the principle that aggregates do not influence each other because there is no causation between them, but I still need to be able to trust Hayek, and Mises when I am to take their cases as the truth.
Iam, in all seriousness, economics and probably math (and even computer science) are the only fields of study still open to the gentlemen scholar for the simple fact that you don’t need specialized equipment to exercise them as they are. For example, at Rebirth of Reason, one of the resident regular posters there has actually developed an alternative proof of hypercomplex numbers on his own, and he was self-taught. And guess what? Some mathematicians are taking it as a serious proof, thus are studying it for any implications that may be useful (especially in applied math). Ed Fredkin in computer science literally created a quantum computer logic gate without even a high school diploma, and thus earned his chair at MIT from hard work and personal insight.
What I’m saying, Iam, is the simple fact that credentials aren’t always from institutions by means of following one set path of engagement. Sometimes it can be through publishing independently (just like another scientist did: James Lovelock). It’s a harder path to take, but it’s not impossible, nor unethical or stupid to attempt it. You just have to be ready to fight for your ideas consistently.
No worries, LS. I’m glad the course of the discussion led you to write that.
How do you get that information other than through a credentialed expert? Information does not grow on trees ready for every layman to harvest it.
A PhD shows the fact that the individual in question has a backround in the information that his PhD is concerned with, that he is familiar with more than just the writings of a handfull of economists.
Is this not the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Why, whenever LS gets involved in a debate, the topic of “liberty” comes up even when it had nothing to do with the conversation? [8-)]
I never said anything about liberty, and I don’t think I’ve said a single thing about liberty in a forum ever. Ergo, how do you know what I think about liberty? Please, LS, provide the quotations in which I spoke about this view of liberty.
LS: judger of the heart, and mind - the man who can tell what you really think, and feel.
Strange, Ron Paul got his economic views from individuals holding PhDs, like Hans Sennholz, in the field.
I think the point was that one doesn’t necessarily need to have a PhD to be an expert, or at least be very knowledgeable about a subject. Surely it can be learned outside of university walls, no?
why isnt simply referring to the cranks incorrect methodology enough to refute it? at least by so doing the onus would be on them to prove that their arguments were not correct merely ‘by happy accident’…
In addition, you could get it from autodidacts who make sound arguments; it may not be quite as likely, but it is not impossible.
It is an indication of that, but the lack of it is not proof of the opposite.
lam: judger of truth from credentials. [:P]
Strange, Ron Paul doesn’t himself have a PhD, and yet writes books and articles which make broad economic arguments.
remind you of anyone ? (H. H.)
I have stated before that a PhD is a credential that shows that one has experience in the field, but that having a PhD is not the only possible credential to have, one can be a congressman for example.
At least I don’t claim that I know what you are thinking, and feeling.
Ron Paul is a very active congressman who has served on the House Banking commitee; he is a man with a lot of experiance on the issues he speaks of.
The economic arguments in Ron Paul’s books and articles have almost everything to do with his readings and contemplations of Austrian economics; they have almost nothing to do with his legislative experience. He may draw on his legislative experience for illustrative examples: but not much more than that.
That is totally mischaracterizing what LS seems to be saying. One can derive knowledge about the character of another’s mind by assessing their arguments and insights. One can derive knowledge about the character of another’s heart by judging whether he is a liar, sycophant, special pleader, etc.
A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Of course it has nothing to do with his congressional career. [8-)] Need I add that this is a compilation of speeches he made in the House of Representatives?
The Case for Gold: Ron Paul coauthored this with Lewis Lehrman, an investment banker himself, at the time of the U.S. Gold Commision, both of the co-authors were on that comission, and according to the Mises story, both the co-authors “worked with a team of economists that included Murray Rothbard…”. Due to its connection with the U.S. Gold Comission, of course Ron Paul’s congressional experience influenced this book. Just the fact that Ron Paul was on the U.S. Gold Comission is enough of a credential for making this book note-worthy.
Freedom Under Siege: According to the Mises store: “Here is Ron Paul’s political manifesto, a courageous book on civil liberties and the rights of Americans that are relentlessly under assault from government.” But, of course his legislative experiance had nothing to do with the content of this book.
Gold, Peace, and Prosperity: Was not Ron Paul on the U.S. Gold Comission? Is not much of this book about the political strategy of bringing back an American gold standard?
Mises, and Austrian Economics: A Personal View: A personal view on Austrian economics, and how it influenced his life. It doesn’t take much credentials to write a book that has the subtitle “A Personal View”, but nevertheless, the fact that it is coming from an American congressman gives it some weight.
Pillars of Prosperty: A compilation of his “greatest speeches and debates over the last 30 years…” Might I add that Ron Paul became a congressman around thirty years ago.
The Revolution: A Manifesto: A manifesto containing the libertarian political, and economic philosophy of Ron Paul’s presedential campaign. Its primarilly a political work, and does not go in depth at all into pure economics, but rather is a manifesto for a political movement.
So, I have gone through all of Ron Paul’s books in the Mises store, and we find not only a strong influence from his Congressional career, but also someone who does not venture into the technicalities of pure economics himself, notice the fact that The Case for Gold was written by the assistance of economists. So much for his books having “almost nothing to do with his legislative experience”; may I add here 1/4 of the books of collections of speeches from him as a congressman.
is this thread off topic yet?
Your quality of knowledge is not that exact, you can only know their arguments, and insights - not the “character” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) of their knowledge.
You know their actions, and actions alone, not the “character of their heart”, define who they are shown to be for we can never know truly “who” someone is.
Indeed. But remember, we’re not allowed to judge Lam because he may be more credentialed than us. So it is inconceivable that laymen could find a flaw in the argument of a credentialed expert (per Lam’s theory) because we are simply not good enough.
I’ve seen Lam do this to thread after thread. Rather than attack the premise, or to contribute to the debate, he, like Giles has to engage in self-aggrandizement and ego stroking, by making ad hominem arguments against the thread starter.
Because what is an argument against one’s credentials, but an ad hominem? In fact, Lam argued this very fact when he recently banned Anarchist Cain.
This is why I have to take breaks from this community at times. If certain characters stay out of the debates, all sorts of fruit and friendships are born. But there are a handful of flies in the ointment who constantly poison pill honest (if un-credentialed and in-expert) debate. And who wants to invest hours each day, reading and writing, to have some ill-intentioned third party interject and rain on their parade?
I suspect few of us.
I’m talking about his economics books and articles.
Did it influence the arguments?
His work on the Gold Commission was influenced by his understanding of economics. Not vice versa.
It’s not a question of weight; it’s a question of veracity.
The fact that he made these speeches as a Congressman does not imply that he derived their arguments from his experience as a Congressman.
He has made broad economic arguments in many articles, speches, and interviews which were not co-authored. By “technicalities” are you saying that not attempting to back up your economic statements with arguments involving economic concepts is preferable to doing so?
I suspect that was the goal of Lam. He seems to do this consistently. None may question the premise of the state or its ideas/institutions while he is around. I suspect he’s the sort of individual who argues for technocracy, because we’re not only too stupid to criticize the state, we probably shouldn’t be electing our betters with such fundamental ignorance.
Again, lilburne, I apologize for my part in this. I wish you could discuss your topic on this forum without the relentless harassment by state apologists.
PS, Ron Paul did not write the Manifesto.
Have I ever said that I was an expert? Give me the quotation that applies.
Quotations, please. Seriously, time to back up that assertion, LS.
Notice that the question of Liburne holding a PhD was in parentheses (meaning it was not exactly relevant to my argument, but I may be a syntax-elitists), and that not holding a PhD meant that one’s claim that all of macro was crank studies was very questionable, not necessarily false.
I ensure the quality of knowledge here, if that means that I have to rain on your parade, so be it.