Ok~~ So I was on reddit helping out the cause in this thread by mentioning this great site and lewrockwell.com http://tinyurl.com/yfs4f8v
I was just chillin making points about methodology (big thanks to Knight_of_BAAWA for giving me some inspiring ammo (heh heh heh)) when some puzzling empiricist came along and said this:
"If Ludwig and his friends are just going to write stuff down with no mathematical analysis or experimentation to back it up, it just becomes an exercise in recording what their particular cognitive biases are.
It almost impossible for a human mind to actually work objectively on any given problem. The constraints that science imposes – double-blind experiments, testable predictions, and so on – is the only known method for breaking free of our biases. Even then, it only works some of the time."
I’m not learned enough in Austrian Econ to argue against this terrible obfuscation, so this proved to be quite the roadblock! I was thinking about talking about the axiomatic nature of it all but I’m just too unconfident…PLZ HELP ME~!!!
Here is my half baked unfinished reply
“Do I need Mathematical analysis or experimentation to back up the statement that humans act? It’s apodictically true.”
I was going to follow onto that and talk about how we finely select and breed our conclusions to make sure they’re of the best breed but i don’t know how to illustrate this ^^ I’m such a noob~!
I probably messed up my other arguments in that thread so if you have the time or inclination to look at them and critique I would be most grateful!
Also would I be better off learning about and getting into some Socratic Method?
A Note on Mathematical Economics - may prove useful.
The mathematical method, like so many other fallacies, has entered and dominated present-day economic thought because of the pervading epistemology of positivism. Positivism is essentially an interpretation of the methodology of physics ballooned into a general theory of knowledge for all fields.
The reasoning runs like this: Physics is the only really successful science. The “social sciences” are backward because they cannot measure, predict exactly, etc. Therefore, they must adopt the method of physics in order to become successful. And one of the keystones of physics, of course, is the use of mathematics.
Do we need double-blind experiments to reason objectively about mathematics? To prove the Pythagorean theorem about right triangles? This is just the fallacy that science trumps logic. It can’t. Science is based on logic. It’s a very popular fallacy, because people have come to see science as the most objective thing in the world. Although it is a great advancement from animal spirits and the like, it can never beat pure logic.
The poster certainly failed to provide any evidence towards this. He’s committed the same error he’s accusing the Austrians of making.
Another example of contradiction. This is a biased statement totally void of any experimentation proving it. Not to mention that any argument he provides for this claim based on experimental evidence would be purely circular.
This is his biggest error. If, as he says, experimentation is the only means available to us in obtaining unbiased truth, how on earth can he then say that it is only partially the case. That would imply that we have another way of determining whether something is biased or not which we can compare experimentation against and judge whether our experiment has produced a biased result or not. However, as he says, we do not have such a faculty.
BTW, the action axiom is partly based on observation. I wouldn’t use that example if you’re trying to show that something doesn’t need to be completely based on experiment in order to be considered correct.
Not to mention AE could be totally consistent with this view of the world since it explicitly says “almost impossible”. So perhaps AE is the only science that is possble to work objectively on?
This is true by quantifier exchange for I’m pretty sure he is saying that for some x it is not the case that x is a human mind and objective. So obviously there is at least 1 science that is objective.
Also though, by contraposition it seems that he is also saying that for some x, if it is objective then it isn’t a human mind which is a position I doubt he would ascribe to so he contradicts his own sentences. (few people believe in ufos or God or both).
For austrianism logic is our great weapon and practice is how we become stronger.
Point out that science is itself a human action. Also, the purpose of science is not to achieve unbias, whatever that means (what is “biased physics”, anyway?), the purpose of science is to explain things, namely, to apply inductive reasoning to organize phenomena into hypotheses that unify and simplify them. All of science boils down to Occam’s Razor - do not multiply entities beyond necessity. An explanation that is more complex than the thing it is to explain is useless. Explanations which are simpler, all things being equal, are preferable. Explanations which explain more phenomena, all things being equal, are preferable. The scientific method is not a magical “algorithm” which inexorably grinds out physical truth, as it is often portrayed by the science popularizers. The scientific method is really a set of heuristics or “best known methods” for studying and explaining the physical world, nothing more. There is provably no mathematical or physical Theory of Everything.
Thank you all very much!! I mentioned the stuff about Pythagoras’ theorem and this one cat said “Hey jackass, have you ever heard of non-euclidean geometry? Why on earth should anybody accept the premises of Austrian economics dumbass?” it seems that non-euclidean geometry fucks up my point! According to non-euclidean geometry triangles in a spherical system don’t add up to 180°! I’m stuck yet again!
This question has already been adequately answered, but I would just like to add something.
Empiricists are those who have never resolved Cartesian doubt. They want to explain the world without appealing to God, so they replaced God with the scientific method, that is, as a third party unbiased observer who can validate their ideas. Unfortunately, Kuhn and others have shown that the scientific method is just as flawed as any philosophy or whatever, and empiricism has been refuted many times over.
No you haven’t, because mathematics itself is just logic. If they want to attack Austrian economics then they must do so logically and not appeal to authority. Mathematics itself can be manipulated in so many ways and produce any result you like–if your logic is off, then your math will be off as well. Their argument is no argument at all, just an unsubstantiated assertion.
The proper response is, “Why on earth should anybody accept the premises of Austrian economics? There’s only one premise – Humans act. Care to prove it by attempting to refute it?”
Precisely. Perhaps he could care to explain “non-Euclidian economics”. How do supply-and-demand schedules work out in Lobachevsky? Or how to measure the “graphic net loss from monopolization” in straddle-like panes? From his own point of view, that economics should be mathematically elaborated, he can’t explain why he works in Euclidian spaces and not in non-Euclidian spaces. The results would be totally different. So, why the bias in asusmptions?
If he can’t explain this bias away, how dares he attack Mises who made no assumption whatsoever, but just stated that people don’t vegatate? Can any “non-misesian” economics be worked out, base don a different assumption?
