The Problem with Praxeology

[Stephen_Forde]

@Smiling Dave

Hoppe’s footnote is referring to a completely different theorem of Godel’s, and is not discussing the problems raised by Godels Incompleteness Theorem that the OP mentioned.

Thanks for that. I initially missed that when I first read Hoppe. But yeah. Just as you say; Godel’s proof demonstrates the incompleteness of the PM system specifically, not axiomatic systems in general.

[wilderness]

@Stephen

PM system

What does “PM” stand for? If it’s already in this thread, I missed it.

[The_Late_Andrew_Ryan]

@ThorsMitersaw

The problem is though, that this “axiom” is anything but self-evident. Many cognitive scientists believe that the will, intent, & goals are just illusions pre-fabricated by our brains, & indeed, Praxeology just assumes outright that we have free will. Now, whether or not those cognitive scientists are correct is beside the point - the fact that it’s even possible that the action axiom is wrong means that if it’s true, it’s an empiricalfact, not an axiomatic one.

So then two things.

If the great majority of human action isn’t purposeful, then

A: Humans would not logically be able to come up with, and understand empirical observations because their action is not purposeful, it is merely random and the chances of consistently doing anything to do with empirical evidence would be about . 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% because action is not purposeful so it would be a miracle in and of itself because action is not purposeful so why would the record keepers continually be keeping records and thinking out hypotheses and conclusions?

B: What are you doing right now? Your action isn’t purposeful so you’re just randomly hitting keys and have no idea what will happen next. It is a marvel that you even managed to post this!

Seriously, what a fail that didn’t understand the point and contradicted itself inherently.

[Zavoi]

@ThorsMitersaw

Many cognitive scientists believe that the will, intent, & goals are just illusions pre-fabricated by our brains, & indeed, Praxeology just assumes outright that we have free will.

Of course it originates in the brain - few would deny that. But I don’t see what “illusion” would even mean in this context. It’s a bit like saying “Well, you thought you were thinking about X, but you really weren’t.”

@wilderness

What does “PM” stand for?

PM is Principia Mathematica, the axiomatic system devised by Whitehead and Russell. Gödel’s theorems apply to PM and any other system capable of representing arithmetic. But I would venture to say that praxeology has nothing to do with arithmetic.

[Conza]

So.. in summation;

No problem with praxeology. lol

[Bert_B]

I was just reading Praxeology & Understanding by George A. Selgin. I found it to be good for a short understanding on praxeology, but I find it hard to grasp the anti-praxeology theories in the first place.

[Torsten]

@filc

He undermines his goal at debunking praxeology by attemping to post a refutation, and in that process acting.

How foolish.

Perhaps he didn’t do so at his free will and this was just a robotic response.

[wilderness]

@Zavoi

@wilderness

What does “PM” stand for?

PM is Principia Mathematica, the axiomatic system devised by Whitehead and Russell. Gödel’s theorems apply to PM and any other system capable of representing arithmetic. But I would venture to say that praxeology has nothing to do with arithmetic.

thanks for picking up on this and answering what that abbreviation means