I guess that I have not been following it; for I have no idea what you are referring to.
Uh, that is an attack against the person. When Ludwig von Mises wrote that he tried to attack only the ideas of his opponents and not them, he gave an example, he cited the fact that he knew that one of the bankers in his country was lying, and was advancing an argument whose acceptance by the public would make him a lot of money, but that he decided not to reveal that and instead just focus on undermining his argument. So just know that I was using the expression how he and other people used the terms.
Plus it is not possible to separate him from his actions. Who he is just is his actions. So you attacking “his act” is you attacking him. (By constrast, when you attack an idea, you are not attacking their “act”; you instead are attacking the idea, subjecting it to criticism whether it is in their head or that of someone else.)
Those comments are over a year old, and he doesn’t provide any sort of context, so I can’t really respond. I don’t know what he’s trying to prove, but I’d appreciate it if he left me out of his nonsense. I’m more than happy to debate him about anything, and I’ve done so in the past (though he quickly retreats), but this sort of thing is really unproductive.
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.
You’ve really missed the point here. The point was that all too often opposing arguments aren’t granted the plausibility they warranted, indeed the arguments were “explained” away by citing alleged characteristics of the person making the argument. Whether it be the “demagoguery” of esteemed monetary theorist George Selgin, the intellectual and moral weakness of a once respected libertarian Gene Callahan or the alleged ignorance (or confusion in one case) of somebody who in the eyes of both yourself and Lilburne is both well read and intelligent.
Just look at this present argument, you’re explaining away anything I’m saying by calling my a liar, citing my alleged self righteousness and otherwise describing what I have to say as “bullshit”. I suppose I can only thank you for providing the perfect illustration of precisely the vicious tendencies that I tried to describe in the OP and subsequent exchanges.
I’m honestly not sure it’s worth arguing with you over something that it seems most community members agree with, except you.
Once again, if you hadn’t rushed to the defensive almost immediately you would have considered the possibility that I’ve had people in private messages agreeing me, both in response to this topic and long beforehand. The topic is rated at 3.29 out of 5, there have been sentiments of agreement throughout the course of the topic and there have only been a few vocal individuals disagreeing with me. None of this proves I’m right, of course, but it does make your claim that I’m the only one believing these things look a bit strange.
msg people privately about stuff that would bore forumites outside of any narrow discussion
I think its cool to be gracious. I think amateurs can speak their minds but can expect to get schooled. If amateurs kept their mouths shut the purpose of this forum would be largely gone. Indeed, messaging privately is often a great thing to do, i’m sure people greatly appreciate your advice that they should consider doing it under conditions when it would be appropriate.
now what would it take for this thread to get rolled up?
No Giles, it was an excuse. That’s why you used it.
No, it was an explanation. If I sincerely felt sorry for “ignoring” said posts, then it would be an excuse. I’m not going to bicker with you over this though, if you wish to presume to know my actions better than I do, or consider so dishonest as to lie over something this petty there’s nothing I could possibly say to convince you otherwise.
Oh, I see… only the ones which you deem productive. That makes sense.
Apparently both Lilburne and yourself have figured this makes sense too; Lilburne saw it fit to ignore my first post and you’ve resorted to quote bombing (a good way to economize on time at the expense of post quality). Time is scarce, I have limited time to spend on these forums and I can allocate that time by getting caught up in unproductive debates and reducing overall post quality or by engaging in productive discussions. I’ll choose the latter if you don’t mind.
Don’t try to lie your way out of it. Just admit that you put up a poor argument.
There’s no lying there, at first I said if I were in the company of somebody whose understanding of economics greatly exceeds my own (examples being Mises and Rothbard) I’d shut up and make notes. If I asked questions I’d do so with humility. In the context of these forums, that situation doesn’t obtain, there is no case of such a difference in knowledge. Nonetheless, there is still a large variance in terms of experience in economics and the less advanced students of economics or philosophy should realise this differential.
I’m really not going to get into the rest of your post, unless you really want me to. The rest it either comes off as downright petty or plain defensive, as much as you plead to the contrary. Good examples of this being:
Thank you for reading what you responded to [/sarcasm].
And,
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.
I would love to pick to pieces the entirty of your post, but alas time is scare and watching “Star Wars” on Spike ranks higher on my value-scale than arguing with you about it. As a result, you may have all the fun you want saying that my choice is idiotic and is merely an excuse for me not being able to gather the intellectual strength to argue with you. But alas, I will be enjoying Star Wars far too much to care about what will be said about me and the opinions of those who attack me.
I would love to pick to pieces the entirty of your post, but alas time is scare and watching “Star Wars” on Spike ranks higher on my value-scale than arguing with you about it. As a result, you may have all the fun you want saying that my choice is idiotic and is merely an excuse for me not being able to gather the intellectual strength to argue with you. But alas, I will be enjoying Star Wars far too much to care about what will be said about me and the opinions of those who attack me.
(1) When did I try to defend his “lying”? (2) When did I even say whether I thought that he was lying or not? (3) When was my reasoning even remotely similar to “because then you are insulting that person”?
I. Ryan, at the risk of sounding insultative, I think you need to work on reading more carefully:
You attacked me for accusing Giles of lying. This is paramount to defending Giles. Like I said in a past post, you replied to it not knowing much about the context it was written in. Nevertheless, the fact that you attacked me for calling a particular argument of Giles dishonest is defending Giles’ dishonesty (you suggested I should refrain from posting, instead of suggesting that the person inclined to lie should refrain from posting himself).
I never said anything about your beliefs on whether or not Giles lied. I’m not sure why you bring that up.
I said: “I am not attacking him. I am attacking his act of being dishonest.” You said: “Uh, that is an attack against the person.” An insult is a verbal attack on a person. I still hold that I attacked that particular use of dishonesty, as opposed of accusing Giles of general dishonesty, but alas I rather not get dragged into another circular and endless debate with you I. Ryan.
I will not be responding to this thread anymore. Obviously, nobody is going to be persuaded in either direction. Yes, that’s my excuse. Whether Giles decides to take his own advice is something I guess we’ll see over the course of the near future. So far, I’ve been let down.
That’s fair enough, I’m sorry I didn’t manage to persuade you. You seemed overly defensive and distrusting from the go, although I daresay some remarks of mine may not have helped. Either way, I hope you change your mind about my posting, although that all too rarely happens.
Nope, I was just criticizing you. It doesn’t matter who you were talking to. What you are doing is just an other example of someone failing to grasp the difference between positive and negative arguments. Because of my style, people tend to do this to me pretty often. See the dialogue below.
Person A: “I believe that capitial punishment should be legal because of argument X.”
Person B: “I disagree that your argument X establishes your conclusion, that capital punishment should be legal, because of argument Y.”
Person C: “I disagree with your argument Y because of argument Z.”
Person B: “So both of you think that capital punishment should be legal. What ridiculousness this is.”
Person C: “No, I was just telling you that your negative argument Y against his positive argument X was ineffective. I wasn’t providing a positive argument for or against capital punishment at all; I was just providing a negative argument against your negative argument.”
Person B: “No, you attacking me for disagreeing with his argument X is tantamount to defending his argument X.”
Person C: “No, again, I was just providing a negative argument against your negative argument; I wasn’t providing my own positive argument or even commenting on the strength of his positive argument. In fact, I have no positive stance on this issue at all.”
Why should I have suggested that he refrain from posting? Doesn’t that require me to take a position on whether he was lying or not? Where did I take a position on that?
I trust that the previous part of this post will show you why you brought that up.
So you use the terms differently than Ludwig von Mises did and that I do. Whatever. But that doesn’t change my point at all. Plus where did I drag you into a “circular and endless debate”? I assume that you are referring to our exchange that lasted like a few posts and ended when you refused to answer my questions because they were “getting dull”. (By the way, answering that might drag you into one of those “circular and endless debates”, so you might want to avoid trying to answer it.)
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.”
This type of response is weird, and not in a good type of way. I don’t see WTF this has to do with what I was talking about. Oh yeah and, strawman.
Begging the question.
No, it really isn’t. Giles asked me a question, and even though we both know what he is implying, my analogy is fine. My understanding of praxeology is solid, not infallible, the same as czelaya and abskebabs’ is of science, and he is attemping to question my authority by appealing to my (imagined) ignorance of faulty alternate methodologies, rather than assert anything about the comparison of these methodologies. Scientism relies on a “category error” (the nature of man vs. atoms as acting and non-acting things). Check that out when you are reviewing the logical fallacies you committed here.
Scientism relies on a “category error” (the nature of man vs. atoms as acting and non-acting things).
The problem is that these mythical “mainstream economists” that believe all sorts of crazy things, like “atoms as acting and non-acting things” don’t actually exist. Look, I’m willing to guess that you’ve never so much as picked up a copy of “Journal of Economic Methodology” or “Economics and Philosophy”, I suppose that’s fine. But it severely limits your credibility when you rattle on about “what mainstream economists think…”
I don’t think anybody would seriously defend the assumptions as accurate or the models as an accurate portrayal of reality. But it doesn’t matter, the outcomes that obtain in reality are the same as those that would obtain were the assumptions “realistic” or “accurate” and in the end that’s what matters. To take Friedman’s example, we can postulate that a snooker player might know all of the laws of physics and whatever else necessary to make the perfect shot, he uses all of this information and makes the shot. Now of course, this rarely happens in reality, but who gives a shit? It helps us make predictions, or understand the real world if that’s more your thing, and that’s all that matters.
And as a matter of fact, as experimental economists have found, that under certain conditions various models will hold. In laboratory settings it only took a few rounds of trades for actors to reach equilibrium. Under various other conditions other economic models have been found to fit the reality nicely. Now, of course, there are times when these models don’t do a good job of explaining the empirical world or have little predictive success, in that case we need to revise them. But what is this if not interplay between theory and history?
I think it needs further substantitation, but I am beginning to see the “dichotomy” between theory and practical application put forward simplistically by those like Friedman based on a misunderstanding of the relation between the two, though he is undoubtably not alone in this given the cartoonishly straightforward propogation of what is known as the “scientific method” today. I think the dichotomy between Austrianism and Experimental Economics, could similiarly be seen as a false one, akin to that between Mathematics and Physics.
For instance, yesterday I was revising Quantum Mechanics. An approximate method to estimate the upper bound of ground state energy of quantum mechanical systems is known the variational method. It is essentially based on the fact that the average of a distribution is greater than or equal to the lower bound of the distribution(aka the groundstate eigen-energy). This is apodictically certain. Yet this “theory”, is not simply theory floating out in the air with no reference to reality, it has real consequences and it is the basis of our very method of finding the groundstate, since we already know that the “average energy” is greater than or equal to it, we find the energy expression based on a statevector with boundary conditions that seem to match the expected groundstate, dependent on a set of parameter(s), which we then minimise with respect to in order to get a best approximation to the groundstate.
It would be the epitome of absurdity to assert that a hypothetical mismatch with observations would be due to the fact that averages of energies sometimes are exceeded by their lower bounds, and we silly apriorists should have “tested” such shaky “a priori” mathematics before making our silly assertions.
And I don’t yet see how the findings of “experimental economics”, e.g. the “discovery”, of transitivity in value scales is an “attack” on Misesian Economics properly understood, as opposed to the unrealistic models found in the “mainstream.” There may be limited returns from some quantitative work, but I feel if the kind of Friedmanite empricism found in the Economics professrion was actually logically consitent, they would be just as wary of using the “apodictic theory” of Mathematics, as of “praxeological economics”(putting aside misunderstandings of Non-Euclidean geomerty for a second).
Hayekianxyz is right, the mainstream economists who treat man like an atom, just like the mainstream economists who treat utility as being cardinal, are all heterodox myths,