Yes, I think part of that can be included in #1 Intellectual Honesty and another part in a more general #5: “Lack of Subconscious Bias”.
I found that rather funny, when people called everyone “a statist” that isn’t a “Anarcho-Capitalist”. Bear in mind, that included everyone from a minarchist (government limited to law and order) to a full-fledge Communist (Government controls every aspect of citizen (or rather subjects) life)…
Its funny cause its true. people that advocate a role for the monopoly involuntary state are to that extent statist. there is a range of statism, it is an issue of degree. If you would have it that a “small amount of something” should in a particular case for a particular reason be regarded as being ‘nothing at all’ then make that case…it certainly isnt a general law. you might be right but you havent even tried to do this yet from what I can tell.
I don’t think anyone would argue that the years of study necessary to obtain a PHD are not useful. Rather, the arguement hinges on whether or not the studies and subsequent degree are directly related to the truth value of one’s ideas.
LibertyStudent and others are responding to the latter with an emphatic no. Giles seems to agree, but is making the point that the years necessary to obtain a PHD can be helpful to someone interested in economics. I don’t think there is any real disagreement here.
Obviously years of study are not causally related to soundness of one’s ideas, as the prevalence of horoscopic astrology demonstrates.
The problem is when people go beyond that and bring up credentials to gain “points” during an argument. Some people here have done that.
That is the same sort of question as “what it is the capitalists DO?”, i.e. the tosswad leftist belief that only manual, backbreaking labor counts as doing anything.
One does not have to advance the science, as it were, to make a contribution. Anyone who tells you differently is lying.
KoB, I think you understand the gist of my post. Clearly I think the Hazlitt made “contributions” in the sense that you used the word. Disputing Keynesian thought is obviously of great importance. But in my usage of the word, Hazlitt didn’t make any “contributions”, this isn’t to say he isn’t important or that his work should not be appreciated (it should), but that he didn’t make any novel breakthroughs.
Which raises the question: so what?
Of course, I’m not saying every scientist should be expected to make novel breakthroughts. And if that’s the criteria we’re using then the majority of scientist have been utter failures. My bigger point was rather that Hazlitt should be seen as a particular kind of economist, whereas Mises and Hayek should be seen as another.
Indeed the people who fund places like LvMI and buy Tom Woods books make a key and unique contribution. Would AE have a resurgence without Ron Paul and LvMI? I don’t know. A lot of private, unknown actors have done the heavy lifting to make that happen.
I can see how statists would have trouble seeing that though. It’s a classic seen/unseen, where they see the PhDs, and they don’t see the costs of creating those PhDs or whether or not they came about voluntarily, or by illegitimate force.
well, you have your pet definition of contribution and Rothbard his own definition; he says of H’s book - Failure of the New Economics
it is no exaggeration to say that this is by far the best book on economics published since Mises’ great Human Action in 1949
Well, of course Rothbard would praise Hazlitt. He was never exactly the most impartial scientist was he?
he wasnt at all a positivist scientist .
thanks for paying attention.
Why should one be impartial when one knows what is right and wrong?
Science is not about right, wrong, truth, and that sort stuff. Science is about scientists behaving in a scientific manner.
They might find it amusing to know that being impartial is in fact establishing a value system within their research.
That’s not a bad parody of the AnCapistanis, however Hayek was a second rate economist and a third rate legal theorist so you come off no better.
Oh god, this was from like a year ago. It was actually painful re-reading my posts.
Over a year actually.
“Oh god, this was from like a year ago. It was actually painful re-reading my posts.”
You are a wild stallion that cannot be tamed. You neigh in defiance and never play the game. I think that saddle may not be good fit on you. NEIGH! NEIGH! NEIGH!.. is what you say.