in order to be able to distinguish axiomatic assertions (Human beings act) from non-axiomatic assertions (Dogs are black) we must apply our reasoning power - an ability that Descartes (and Mises) presupposes, without basis, is infallible. in order to trust one’s own judgment regarding the veracity of the ‘action axiom’ one must first rationally demonstrate the infallibility of the human mind to distinguish axioms from non-axioms… which seems at odds with experience, seeing as how we, for example; are prone to make mistakes when we calculate math problems.
to comprehend a deduction we also apply our memory - how else could we travel from premise to conclusion? memory is an equally unreliable faculty.
self-evident knowledge may or may not exist.. but it will forever be beyond our grasp. absolute knowledge is an illusion. austrian economics has no epistemological foundation for its claims.
I am pretty bad at math, but thats why I use my fingers and toes. I think empirical observations are the ‘fingers and toes’ of rationalistic deductions.
"in order to be able to distinguish axiomatic assertions (Human beings act) from non-axiomatic assertions (Dogs are black) we must apply our reasoning power - an ability that Descartes (and Mises) presupposes, without basis, is infallible. in order to trust one’s own judgment regarding the veracity of the ‘action axiom’ one must first rationally demonstrate the infallibility of the human mind to distinguish axioms from non-axioms… which seems at odds with experience, seeing as how we, for example; are prone to make mistakes when we calculate math problems.
to comprehend a deduction we also apply our memory - how else could we travel from premise to conclusion? memory is an equally unreliable faculty.
self-evident knowledge may or may not exist.. but it will forever be beyond our grasp. absolute knowledge is an illusion. austrian economics has no epistemological foundation for its claims."
The Late Andrew Ryan: how did einstein come up with his general theory? not to sound arrogant, i just don’t think there’s an answer to that question. occasionally the Gods smile at us from their heavenly dwelling. your guess is as good as mine.
First paragraph assumes that because we err at complicated things [math calculations] therefor we cannot be relied on for simple one liners. Doesn’t follow.
Also, Mises has this argument of “disprove it and you prove it” about the action axiom, which the poster has not refuted.
Second paragraph says we rely on memory, which is unreliable. This makes a similar assertion to that of the first paragraph. That because we forget things in the more distant past [that we are not concentrating hard on remembering] therfor we cannot rely on short term memory at full concentration. Doesn’t follow.
Also, in this marvelous computer age and with the discovery of symbolic logic, all deductions can be spewed out from a machine, which uses computer memory, not human.
Third paragraph is, I suppose, a deduction from the first two. which have both been refuted.
Also, we aren’t talking about total, absolute, written in stone truth. We are content with something on the same level as, say, 2+2=4.
Nowhere did Mises claim that our reasoning power is infallible.
It does not follow that “one must first rationally demonstrate the infallibility of the human mind to distinguish axioms from non-axioms” in order to “trust one’s own judgment regarding the veracity of the ‘action axiom’.”
Only because we need to apply an unreliable faculty when we argue does not refute all arguments ever made.
I agree, I think that this really underpins the whole axiomatic project.
As for the OP argument itself, there is definitely somethings fishy about it in my mind. It seems that there is a whiff of a contradiction in it since it states that self-evident knowledge is not knowable but I think this statement is definitely ambiguous enough to be interpreted as a stab at self-evident knowledge. Also, there is no obviously tautological or necessary connection between the contingent skill of perfectly knowing and constructing axioms and the skill of perfectly knowing and constructing axioms -sometimes you can sometimes you can’t.
But also, it seems to imply a contractiction namely, that 1+1=2 or that all unmarried men are bachelors or that the whole is greater than its parts are all unknowable since they are all self-evident. Yet, these statements are known by the OP.
Austrian economics does nowhere claim to command “absolute knowledge” or “infallibility” or anything of the sort. The first principles of logic are universal and necessarily presupposed by the human intellect whenever we articulate or communicate conscious thought. I cannot articulate or communicate the proposition that “the law of non-contradiction is false” without presupposing the law of non-contradiction in language.
Your argument would also necessitate the conclusion that “mathematics has no epistemological foundation for its claims.”
If you have a problem with Austrian epistemology, demonstrate (A) your disagreement with a proposed axiom - thereby demonstrating it is not an axiom, (B) a logical error in derivation from an axiom, or (C) an inapplicability of some axiom or derivation to some real-world situation.
Then we may as well give up rational thinking (“guessing”), pack up our brains and sit in our chairs as vegetables until we’re all dead. It’s possible that I may hit my finger with a hammer, so why bother building my house?
We cannot use a rational argument to refute all rational arguments, since this argument would refute itself.
Sure, we might make mistakes, even in mathematics. But that doesn’t mean that, in any particular case, we have to give up making statements altogether.
“We cannot use a rational argument to refute all rational arguments, since this argument would refute itself.”
Lol, damnit Zavoi! I was just about to say that.
“The Late Andrew Ryan: how did einstein come up with his general theory? not to sound arrogant, i just don’t think there’s an answer to that question. occasionally the Gods smile at us from their heavenly dwelling. your guess is as good as mine.”
If you want me to believe that either you rationally came up with something disproving rational thinking then you fail and your own argument not only shoots itself in the foot but beats itself to death with a frying pan. If you want me to believe that you just came out of this intiuitivly and there was no logic used thhen at least you’re consistent with you’re reasoning but your argument itself is just as silly as “Red fish game is soft clothing” both statements would, by your statement, be equally likely to be correct as the human mind cannot uncover the truth or rational axioms.