I was going to say something along those lines, but then I’d be playing…
doh!
Mainstream economics is pseudoscience. Why should I memorize Marx and Hegel, when the flaws in their thought are easily identified and can be demolished in a few sentences.
Here’s a test for you Giles: refute or “say something intelligent” about these essays by Rothbard.
If you’re going to start a topic and you invite me to contribute, I’ll be more than willing to do so to the fullest extent possible, time permitting of course. But quite frankly, I’ve got better things to do than to sit here and comply with every petty wish you have.
ERO, here’s a genuine question, what is your exposure to “mainstream economics”.
Right Giles, “I don’t have time” is code for “I am avoiding it”. I know how it is, same as your stupid asteroid thread where you had nothing to say about Hoppe or Block’s paper on public goods. You have 5K posts and still rarely ever make a substantive argument. It’s pretty sad. If you just stop making stupid statements like, “Hoppe calls anyone he disagrees with a positivist”, I would leave you alone. Think before you post, just a little, if what you are saying can be substantiated and is inflammatory, or if it is a logical fallacy.
How much exposure have you had to elementary logic? Have you ever had a job, let alone owned your own business? Do you know what it is like to waste at least two weeks every year on compliance with absolutely pointless regulations? Maybe you will be less of an apologist for the status quo once you graduate college. Oh wait, you are econ major, so you have basically no options to use your degree besides being a professor or working for the government. Here’s you in 30 years, if you don’t change things. Do you want to be like him? Are you actually willing to critically evaluate your own position?
ERO, here’s a genuine question, what is your exposure to “mainstream economics”.
First off, my answer is that I know enough about such things as epistemology and ontology to know that it is pseudoscience, generally speaking. This thinly veiled line of attack of yours is akin to me questioning the authority of theoretical physicists like czelaya or abskebabs by asking how much they know about mediaeval alchemy.
I’m honestly not all that interested in economics, and my focus is law. Still, I feel confident that I can work through a majority of economics problems, both Austrian and pseudoscience. I have no problem admitting when I don’t understand something, but if you actually present me with a question and your pseudoscience “answer” has a superior one from Austrians, you are going to get the correct answer. I think you would be surprised actually how much pseudoscience I have read. I have slews of random pseudoscience books I got from a “free bookstore”. I think a lot of them are at my other house I won’t be visiting until Memorial Day but I have Keynes’ Economic Consequences of the Peace, which I read most of, Schumpeter’s Business Cycles (skimmed), Mankiw’s Principles of Macro (read most but don’t remember it and it has obvious problems), and Nicholson’s Microeconomic Theory (skimmed, but I spent a good while reading other micro books), and maybe some other ones around somewhere here.
I think it would be interesting if you actually presented a problem to me which hasn’t been better solved by Austrians. Statists are constantly backpedalling, and I never hear much in the way of proposals from dedicated contrarians such as yourself. I’ll spend more time on this as soon as you make what I deem a valid response to your asteroid thread.
“First off, my answer is that I know enough about such things as epistemology and ontology to know that it is pseudoscience, generally speaking.”
Explain. How is “mainstream” econ pseudoscience?
“First off, my answer is that I know enough about such things as epistemology and ontology to know that it is pseudoscience, generally speaking.”
Explain. How is “mainstream” econ pseudoscience?
…
Here’s a test for you Giles: refute or “say something intelligent” about these essays by Rothbard.
I actually didn’t read my own link but it seems to be the essays from the first half of Rothbard’s Individualism and the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (not online).
“…”
I have not read the entire discussion, so if you explained earlyer I my have missed it. So perhaps you could copy and paste an explanation if you already provided one.
Cliffnotes: Humans act, atoms don’t. The same approach to the natural sciences simply does not work for studying human society. It is impossible to literally hold constants in place when dealing with human actions, as one might with natural sciences where mathematical functions are appropriate. Read the essays or get the book from a library if you want a better answer.
“Cliffnotes: Humans act, atoms don’t. The same approach to the natural sciences simply does not work for studying human society. It is impossible to literally hold constants in place when dealing with human actions, as one might with natural sciences where mathematical functions are appropriate. Read the essays or get the book from a library if you want a better answer.”
I don’t know what book I would get from the library which would inform me about your beliefs regarding what constitutes pseudoscience. I don’t know which of the many approaches used in the natural sciences you are referring to either. But yes, I certainly expected a better answer.
I’m not sure what your malfunction is. The book is italicized and the essays are a hyperlink (probably appears in blue letters and underlined in your browser).
If it’s ‘exam time’ then don’t start the argument (yes, and I have finals as well).
Funny how that works.
Funny how that works.
What?
Well, I was just trying to ascertain whether you intended on answering my last post or not.
It’s not an excuse because I don’t feel like I have anything to apologise for.
No Giles, it was an excuse. That’s why you used it.
The great advantage of this medium is precisely that debates can be picked up after a while of inactivity.
OK, then get to it and start picking them up. But, when you do, please actually provide an argument.
Rest assured, when exams are over I’ll try and pick up any debates that I feel had the potential of being productive.
Oh, I see… only the ones which you deem productive. That makes sense.
I’m pretty sure that’s what people here would label a “baseless assertion” if they were so inclined to use such terms. I’d like know why you think this is different to the argument I was making before.
What’s more baseless, my accusation of you changing your argument, or your assertion that I made a baseless assertion? This is what you wrote in your opening post,
I may have a fair few disagreements with Mises or even Rothbard, but if they were in front of me I’d shut the hell up and listen, only speaking to ask questions.
Don’t try to lie your way out of it. Just admit that you put up a poor argument.
I’ve not provided a valuable argument since my return?
I have yet to see a single one.
This is getting rather unpleasant quite quickly…
I’m sorry that the fact that we don’t enjoy your poor attempts to troll these forums by lecturing us is unplesant for you.
So to say that I’ve not made one single valuable argument strikes me as a little strong, either way, this is becoming needlessly personal and you’re becoming overly defensive.
I’m not being defensive at all; this has nothing to do with me. And I’m sorry that you feel that it’s strong, but it’s also true, and it’s something I’ve kept saying in all of my responses (but you’ve only caught now, strangely).
You quite clearly used the word intelligence…
Thank you for reading what you responded to [/sarcasm]. I never said I didn’t use the word.
I’ll stick to my view that I’m above average in terms of experience with economics, although, I don’t want to get into a petty debate about it right now.
I’m not talking about your absolute knowledge of economics. I am talking about your knowledge of economics compared to others. You are making the “baseless assertion” that you are more well read then a large number of forum members, but you have yet to prove it.
Well, I was just trying to ascertain whether you intended on answering my last post or not.
I’m honestly not sure it’s worth arguing with you over something that it seems most community members agree with, except you.
My point is this, as an empirical matter there is a persistent tendency for those who disagree with “LvMI orthodoxy” to be spoken to in a way that is inappropriate for civil discussion.
None of the examples, except where Ensuric called Selgin a moron (which he should be reprimanded for), you provide in this response are insults against people’s intelligence. What, accusing someone of obfuscating the argument is now an ad hominem? Is the only civil discussion the one where you agree with your opposition? Get real, Giles.
Huh? When was this? What does Giles’ inability to put forth a single coherent argument have to do with me?
Once you accuse the person of lying, the discussion is pretty much over.
Yeah, it does. For example, if someone were to accuse me of lying, I would probably stop deeming it productive and then I would just not respond anymore. If discussions are to develop, defend, and attack ideas, not people, accusing whoever you are talking to of lying is worthless. Who cares whether their new presentation is a new idea or a clarification of an old one? Who cares what their motives are? Unless you are just trying to score points and “win” the argument, accusing them of lying is worthless.
Huh? When was this? What does Giles’ inability to put forth a single coherent argument have to do with me?
He quoted you calling someone a moron, or an argument moronic, in a previous post (on the second page of this thread).
I. Ryan,
Don’t try to lie your way out of it.
I’m sorry, next time I’ll just put up with someone blatantly lying.
Yeah, it does. For example, if someone were to accuse me of lying, I would probably stop deeming it productive and then I would just not respond anymore.
Honestly, maybe you’d be less inclined to post if you kept up with the debate between Giles and I. If you were genuinely lying and I accused you of doing so, causing you to stop posting, all-in-all I would call that a productive end to a debate. If one is either going to lie or stop arguing, then the latter is prob. the best out of the two options.
But, Giles started this topic in an effort to lecture us all on increasing the productivity of debates on these fora. So far, Giles has not been a good example.
If discussions are to develop, defend, and attack ideas, not people, accusing whoever you are talking to of lying is worthless.
I am not attacking him. I am attacking his act of being dishonest.
Who cares whether their new presentation is a new idea or a clarification of an old one? Who cares what their motives are? Unless you are just trying to score points and “win” the argument, accusing them of lying is worthless.
What are you even talking about?
Male A: “I think that abortion should be legal because of argument X.”
Male B: “I disagree with your reason X because of counterargument Y. Plus I think the opposite, I think that it should be illegal, because of argument Z.”
Female A: “Nothing gets me madder than seeing a bunch of men arguing over abortion. Have either of you ever been pregnant? Nope. Could either of you ever become pregnant? Nope. Do either of you have any idea what it is like to have be pregnant or to deliver a child? Again, nope. It is easy to just say that it is their fault and their responsibility if you never even have a chance to get thrusted into that situation. If you are a man, you could just run away and forget about it if you get someone pregnant. But, for the woman, whatever they do, whatever choice they make, the ramifications of it are with them for the rest of their lives. It is just not something that men can understand.”
We know that, if they hold the position about methodology that you are referring to, they probably do not follow the method that they state that they follow. Otherwise, they would be handcuffed and sterile. Do you think that it is impossible that they have anything to offer just because what they state about their method is messed up? Plus I have no idea whether the “mainstream” really are a bunch of positivists or not; I do not have enough exposure to them to know. And I am not about to trust the restatement of their method that the Austrians expouse constantly; I want to see it for myself.
Begging the question. Hayekian thinks that the “mainstream” is worthwhile to read and listen to. Why he asked that question hinged on him thinking that. That was the point. So comparing them to “medieval alchemy” is not addressing his point. What you should do to prove your point is first explain why they are that ridiculous and then conclude that, because of those reasons, his question is that ridiculous. But you made no effort to do that except what I already responded to. Why else is it “pseudo-science”?