Well, you are yet to offer reasons to think that 2+1=3 is not a fact of the world, all you have said is that facts such as the number of cars on the road are understood through interpreting the abstracts, I don’t see how that begins to address your assertion that the part that you labelled as ‘abstract’ is not true about the world.
2 + 1 = 3 in itself says nothing about the world. It’s an abstraction.
Isn’t this a mere assertion? why aren’t ‘abstractions’ ‘saying stuff’ about the world. They say things like ‘in this world, these relations hold’ . no ?
Here’s a puzzle for you anyway.. Is there a ‘fact of the matter’ as to whether things that are only abstractions are or are not real facts about the world. ?
2 + 1 = 3, in itself, doesn’t say anything about the world because it doesn’t refer to anything specifically about the world. To claim that it is a relation that holds in the world (which I believe it does, I’m not here to question basic arithmetic) you need to create the components of that statement. Number and operations are not inherent to the world. They were concepts created by human beings that allow us to make substantively useful interpretations about the world. And these interpretations yield facts about the world. Facts informed by that theory.
Simply positing 2 + 1 = 3 is not a fact about the world. It may be a fact with regard to internal consistency, but to say it holds in the world is an empirical question. And it this combination of theory, interpretation and observation that creates facts.
Facts are not simply out it the world. I don’t know of any fact that has been found without interpretation of some kind.
As to whether there is a “fact of the matter” delineating abstractions from “real” facts, no there isn’t. There is not a criterion for demarcating the two from each other independent of a theoretical interpretation that informs it.
Number and operations are not inherent to the world.
Does this particular dogma have a name that its commonly known by? How can we determine if this position is correct or not?
Simply positing 2 + 1 = 3 is not a fact about the world. It may be a fact with regard to internal consistency, but to say it >>holds in the world is an empirical question.
How can it be an empirical question if there is no empirical testing possible to prove or disprove whether it is a fact about the world ?
Facts are not simply out it the world. I don’t know of any fact that has been found without interpretation of some kind.
I don’t know of any rocks that have been found without the senses of touch, sight etc. Yet for every rock that is yet to be discovered by these means, whose presence we remain ignorant of, does it only exist and rely on its existance due to having being sensed, and so not exist? Your philosophy will deny as-yet-undiscovered rocks their independant reality if we believed it. It makes the notion of undiscovered rocks ridiculous, when they would seem to me to be perfectly sensible. So that tells me something is up.
Does this particular dogma have a name that its commonly known by? How can we determine if this position is correct or not?
Dogma?
You could start by providing an argument for the independent, natural existence of numbers.
How can it be an empirical question if there is no empirical testing possible to prove or disprove whether it is a fact about the world ?
It’s not possible to prove or disprove anything. If it were that would be an argument for unalterable truth (speaking of dogma), something that science as a reflexive practice cannot establish. However, we can find reason to believe that it holds well enough as far as we understand it to employ it in other endeavors to explain the world.
I don’t know of any rocks that have been found without the senses of touch, sight etc. Yet for every rock that is yet to be discovered by these means, whose presence we remain ignorant of, does it only exist and rely on its existance due to having being sensed, and so not exist? Your philosophy will deny as-yet-undiscovered rocks their independant reality if we believed it. It makes the notion of undiscovered rocks ridiculous, when they would seem to me to be perfectly sensible. So that tells me something is up.
What I’ve written so far does no such thing. Given that we have discovered rocks (note: this requires we created the theoretical category of ‘rocks’ by which to identify them, providing us the means to interpret rocks as rocks) and that we are constantly observing previously unobserved rocks I have no idea how you would then conclude that we must now deny the existence of unobserved rocks.
If you really understand that words can denote different concepts, then why would you have reacted the way you did when I said that “property” is just a word? You seemed incredulous. And as far as I’m concerned, I have been addressing the substance of your post.
Do you think anything ever exists outside of the mind? Because that’s what I’m talking about when I use the word “objective”. It seems that you’re using “objective” in a different way from that.
It appears that our difference in perspective is deeper than I thought. We don’t even seem to be using the word “exist” the same way. Let me ask you this: if one person stops believing in something, does that mean anyone else must also stop believing in it?
I’m sorry but saying things like “the concept of a contract exists” and “the concept of a contract … is mutually recognized” still sounds like reification to me. That is, it seems to imply that concepts have some kind of existence that is independent of any human mind. However, as I noted above, we seem to have different definitions of “existence” itself.
But even momentarily accepting arguendo that concepts create new possibilities for socially relevant action which did not exist previously, how is that anything other than an instrumental function? Possessing a car creates new possibilities for physically relevant action which did not exist previously (i.e. travelling from New York to California within a week under one’s own power), and that seems to be entirely instrumental in nature.
Finally, let me ask you this: would you say that I’m free to speak to you in any language whatsoever - even one that I make up?
Again, talking about “recognizing anything [I] did” sounds like reification to me. At the very least, it seems to imply that there’s a correct answer to the question, “What role is this person performing?” There’s no correct answer to that question - it’s all a matter of opinion.
What exactly do you mean by “effect [sic] the world around you”? Can I not affect the world around me by picking an apple from an apple tree, for example?
Are you claiming here that methodological individualism can’t explain where any social context comes from? Is that what you’re trying to say here?
How does falling off a cliff not require the laws of physics? If there was no gravity, then a person wouldn’t fall off a cliff, now would he?
I’m sorry but I think you’re shifting the goalposts with regard to incorporating the effects of things on human actions. A person can take into account the notion that he’ll fall down if he runs off a cliff. He doesn’t have to explicitly encode a (let alone the) law of universal gravitation in his head, that’s true, but nevertheless the laws of physics give rise to the notion that he’ll fall down if he runs off a cliff. So I’d say that the laws of physics in some way are informing (and thus effecting) his actions, and I see this as being entirely consistent with methodological individualism. Now methodological individualism can’t explain where the laws of physics come from, but why does it have to?
As I see it, you keep repeating this bare assertion in different ways. For some reason you apparently expect that to eventually convince me. It won’t. Methodological individualism explains how social phenomena emerge from the actions and interactions of multiple (if not myriad) individuals. If what you’re asserting were true, then methodological individualism couldn’t be used as the basis for any economic theorizing whatsoever. It couldn’t explain how economic phenomena like money, prices, supply, and demand arise. Are you claiming that methodological individualism actually can’t explain those things? Or what? I once again ask you to please substantiate.
That’s your (necessarily subjective) opinion, and I’m in no way obligated to agree with it. Here, let me put it in terms you might be more familiar with: your “recognition” of my judgement “sucking” in no way requires me to “recognize” it in the same way.
Well, if you’re going to claim that methodological individualism can’t explain all economic institutions, then I’d like you to substantiate that with reasoning and/or evidence.
How what makes you think that the state is more fundamental for understanding social phenomena?
My answer to that is no, because I don’t think most Americans have any awareness of the reserve-currency status of the dollar in the global economy. Perhaps we’re each using a different definition of “take [something] for granted” as well.
So where would you say those pre-human institutions came from?
Because you didn’t address the substance of my post there. You brought up a point that I started this thread with.
I would say things exist independent of human beings. Saying things exist independent of human beings and saying that there are objective facts are very different. An “objective fact” requires a passive theory of knowledge, that human beings can know something without interpreting it. It seems to me this is not possible.
So, yes, I think there is an existence independent of human beings. No, we cannot say anything objective about it, therefore objective facts do not exist.
No, you can believe whatever you want. But what you believe can mean something very different if other people change what they believe. If your girlfriend breaks up with, stops believing you’re a couple and you continue to believe that you’re still together. You believe the same thing, but what that means is very different now that your girlfriend has left.
No it does not imply that concepts exist independent of human minds. People create concepts, their understanding of these concepts have an intersubjective quality. Where’s the existence outside of human minds here?
The creation of a concept can change the actors party to an interaction. The creation of universal rights changed the parties involved in a variety of interactions. Before, there was interaction between serfs and lords, with those identities possessing completely different agencies. When they became individuals, equal in a substantive way which did not previously exist, they became different actors. I would agree cars serve pretty much an instrumental function, not everything has constitutive effects (however, I could imagine someone making an argument for the constitutive effects of the car).
Sure you’re free to speak to me in any language.
Well, given my position on objective facts, obviously I don’t think that there is a “correct” answer to what role someone is playing. It’s a matter of interpretation. But is that not what anarcho-capitalist are trying to affect? To change the recognition afforded to state officials? Is a cop inherently a cop? I would say no. But the mutually recognized role of that person is that of a cop, possessing a very specific agency, not possessed by others. AnCaps want to alter the identity of that cop, change the intersubjective understanding of what it is that person can or cannot do justifiably.
By “effect the world around you” I was speaking socially. To change things socially around you, like changing the status of a cop with a set of privileges to an individual without privilege.
Yes.
So the laws of physics exist outside the human mind? The laws of physics are concepts that human beings impose on phenomena they experience in order to understand them. They aren’t just out in the ether waiting to be found by someone.
Speaking of reification…
The laws of physics and understanding you will fall off a cliff are not the same thing. The laws of physics are not necessary for the phenomena of falling. The laws of physics are concepts that are grafted onto a phenomena that allow people to understand it.
I don’t care if you’re convinced one way or the other. I’m not even sure you’re well read enough for me to even have a shot at convincing you otherwise. That’s not my goal.
I think it can provide an explanation for those things, however it will be an explanation that has to make assumptions (like the freedom and equality of market participants) that it does not explain. Any explanation will do this as you must make assumptions which you then make deductions from. My point is MI is not sufficient for explaining the identities, preferences, and interests of actors.
Ok.
I didn’t claim MI can’t explain all economic institutions, I said I’m not sure it can. I don’t know whether it can or not, so I’m going to say it can or not.
The state is the primary political institution within contemporary western societies. Therefore it has a massive constitutive effect on identities, preferences and interests.
So if there is a factor that effects the actions of actors that they are not even aware of how would analyzing their actions and considerations fully explain a phenomena?