Are you referring to me or Giles?
You know Lam, it would be nice if you chimed in when Giles is posting Ad Homs or being vulgar. Then I would have more respect for when you chastise me. But you’re conveniently silent much of the time, and I refuse to believe I am so exceptional as to warrant special attention.
Whatever.
A good scientific theory is completely objective.
That does not matter, what matters is judgements of value in theories themselves, we need not even take the theorizing scientist into consideration.
The point of your statement being?
No, Bernake is a bureaucrat interested not in the analysis of pure economic theory, but in the application of pure economic theory to the American economy, who has no objectivity in the matter as well.
I don’t think it a flaw in myself to not have the tact and insight of Murray Rothbard. Why prance around the argument?
To you, LS.
Because its easy to see when individuals are using demagaugery, but I will only call them on it when I’m arguing against them, so you’re exceptional in this situation because what you’re arguing is a mockery of good science.
Oh the irony.
Objectivity is an impossiblity. For even starting a theory you are making an subjective claim. Let us say I am a scientist. Myself wanting to create a theory to explain solar radiation is the end of my objectivity. For when I choose what to study, I instill my values.
Personally, I am a historian. I am in an academic circle that is always voicing ‘objectivity.’ Economics are not much different then historians in a sense. Both look at human action [Or at least Austrians do]
Objectivity, with respect to the theories themselves, is anything but impossible, it may be difficult for some, but its what science demands. I do not care if Mr. A is completely biased with respect to field B, he may think its the greatest thing God created - I personally do not care, what I do care about is whether, or not the theories of Mr. A are objective.
Mr. A’s theories are from Mr. A so it is absurd to think that objectivity can come from subjectivity. I think you are mislabeling truth with objectivity.
Could be. Yet the point is there are various scientific theories within any given field, namely economics. Why would a person pick one over the other and all that other stuff I brought up? And you said a “good” scientific theory - who said it’s good? Why do they value it to be such? Thank you for making a value statement.
You could focus on the theories themselves, but then somebody has to look around at all the various theories that could quite possibly offer significant helpful data. And that somebody is - a scientist.
As the new data and discoveries are being made, the scientist has to take the time to learn them and consider them for that data and those discoveries could change the theory the scientist is currently using. A scientist, Bill, that does this - is - valuing the science more than their own theory that might be flawed and rebutted by the piling up data that other scientists using Bill’s theory or other theories have surmounted.
Bernake doesn’t think that, does he? He probably thinks he’s using the best scientific models, applying them in the best manner possibly considering the available tools (though he would like more tools and influence in the economy I’m sure as his historical actions show), and he creates new hypothesis as Bernake likes to say (paraphasing), “We’re currently taking creative steps in the economy.”
Now Bernake is probably more arrogant then lacking in the time to learn new theories, such as Austrian economics. But that’s still a preference of his.
Scientists don’t readily know what scientists do. Philosophers of science study scientists and their actions. Scientists don’t. So I refer back to Thomas Kuhn’s book, as a reminder that there is much more to science that heavily influences how they can achieve their ends. Choices are made that value select according to contextual circumstances what the scientist is able to do. Also a scientist doesn’t know everything in their field, at all times, but some scientists do keep up with their field very well and respond to these new developments to rearrange their conceptual view of their theories or hypothesis. Then they take the next step and incorporate this new data in whatever experiments they are partaking with.
So this,
Mises legacy won’t be lost, because the state had nothing to do with preserving it thus far.
warrants this?
That is nothing but an emotion-driven statement without any reason for it being true.
How so? Where was the emotion? How is this statement untrue?
This sounds like a lot of BS Lam. You post one ridiculous statement (above) then say I am using a “pathetic ad hom” while claiming to protest “a mockery of good science”?
What good science Lam? I judge science by it’s value in the market. Giles doesn’t pay for the science he likes, in fact, the science is paid for with coercion if it takes any public funds. So how can anyone call the science good, when we don’t even know if there would be a market for it in the first place?
Agreed. Objectivity and Subjectivity are archaic to begin with it’s to think there is no observer when there is, and yet science does very well with observers I don’t see what’s so threatening about scientists involved with their experiments? It’s been working quite well for hundreds of years so far.
I’ve seen it in other historians. If you claim to be anything but objective you are seen as a propaganist or something of the like. But a lack of objectivity is not a lack of truth.
It is emotional because the crux of the matter is that you are expecting your readers to think that the state is evil, therefore anything negative that you say about the state is true. Otherwise, there is no proof whatsoever for your statement being true, its nothing but an opinion with no possible claim to validity. Afterall, look at all the intellectuals who taught at public universities, and all the more whose doctrines were taught there who are still remembered, and I’m sure most of them are known ever more so than Mises is.
You are making a mockery of good science by expecting Austrian economics to become a servant to libertarianism rather than keeping the two seperate as is necessary for objectivity:
A good scientific theory should find its value not in the fact that it can be applied to some use, but because of the fact that it efficiently explains the phenomena it studies; otherwise, Marx was correct calling the economists the synchopants of the bourgeoisie.
And who are you to assume that science would not have a market. So what if scientists accept public funds as long as there are no strings attached, which so often there are, but I digress; nevertheless, while the commons exist - loot the commons.
No, they can be objective because Mr. A does not decide to advocate his own political beliefs in his book on political economy.
What is threatening is when scientists begin to put their own judgements of value into their theories . Does Einstein’s cosmological constant, guided not by evidence, but by his own Spinozist metaphysical judgements of value, summon a shudder in you?
Exactly. A person can be very truthful.
Also another point is a scientist is somebody testing their ideas in the field somewhere. A scientific economist has to be testing his or her ideas in the economy for I know of no other economic experiment for testing hypothesis. If the person is not testing their ideas in the economy, then they are instead philosophizing and not doing science. A philosopher can make assumptions or hypothesize about the economy and show how their theories would lead to A when instead Bernake’s is leading to B. But if a person doesn’t apply their ideas somewhere or see their ideas being applied, then their ideas are not being tested and no science is occurring.
One would think Bernake after all his failed ideas in the economy would realize this, but all scientists have a loop hole for their tested ideas it’s called anomalies. These are unknowns that the current theory can’t explain. Scientists would like answers for these anomalies, but as long as they think their current theories are being fruitful enough they will continue to use the same theories, until a better one comes along or their current theory stops being fruitful. [One Keynesian loop hole for anomalies is called “animal spirits”] Bernake thought he saw “green sprouts” in the economy. These “green sprouts” validate his theory in his eyes. His theory is being fruitful, though messy and it takes work, these “green sprouts” are for Bernake, confirming that his theory is working.
Now whether or not these “green shoots” (sprouts? I can’t remember the word he used) are real and whether or not they actually have to do with the Fed’s actions I would doubt the latter. Bernake and friends forget that the free market works whether or not the Federal Reserve is here or not.
My point is objectivity and subjectivity are archaic and lead to misunderstandings. You think subjectivity means Einstein would have applied his politics to his E=mc2. I think subjectivity simply means Einstein was a conscious person that chose through various ways to conclude E=mc2 has value and is true. These two concepts have been through the ringers of culture and mean different things to different people. It happens quite often.
And I know Einstein used evidence, but I don’t think this means Einstein had nothing to do with this evidence collecting. And no, before we get into this, there is not a universal definition of these concepts that holds water. Certain philosophies has even moved past these concepts for clarity’s sake. And some people don’t think so, and that’s fine. Opinions vary. We hold values in other words.
I am “expecting” my readers?
There was no proof for Giles’ statement being true either. Picking and choosing?
I’ve listened to Mark Thornton tell it, and Austrian Economics was nearly dead until LvMI. LvMI is a private institution. It does not take money coerced from people by the state. It survives on private funding. I don’t see how your statement about the state carries any weight whatsoever. LvMI is the only institution I am aware of that puts Mises front and center.
The legacy of Mises was preserved (as I understand it) by Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, Margit von Mises and some others (Burton Blumert?). They are the heroes of the story, even if Lew and Margit were not “scientists”.
Giles frequently makes the point that the state subsidizes activity that would not exist without such subsidy. Within the context of OUR discussion, I don’t think I was making an outrageous statement.
How much do you know about the funding sources for this “good science”? Have you compared the sort of work Bob Higgs and Robert Murphy do, outside LvMI but not in the public domain? Is it comparable at all to the obsession with publishing in volumes of journals?
But public funds are not earned in the market. They are not gained by voluntary exchange. Someone is coerced into giving them up. Their property rights are violated, and in some cases, they might be threatened with violence.
If you’re ok with that, that’s your call. I’m not ok with it.
It’s not a commons. It is stolen property.
An impossbility. If it is a book on a portion of the political economy then the author choosing to acknowledge that portion is a subjective desire, if it is a book on the whole of political economy then it naturally an intrepretation of the author himself. Others may have a differing points of view and dispute the other. Such is the world of subjectivity. For a world of objectivity is such that there is only one universal answer/outlook. Again I propose to you, you are confusing objectivity with truth and you are certainly not the first and only one who has.
Stop acting the victim, and start giving me proof.
Causation fallacy, just because the state happened to have no influence does not mean that it would not have been better.
Of course you’re making an outrageous statement, you are assuming that you have enough knowledge to make such a statement, which completely outrageous.
Its a commons created by the government, and I fully support everyone getting their share of government-money, you deciding that you’re too moral to take government money will not accomplish anything, but good research can advance science, prevent that money going to other uses like bombs over Iraq, and little by little advance the government’s debt to critical mass; dare I say that the latter is both moral, considering both the consequences and the fact that the government has already taken money personally from you and its about time you get it back, and advantageous, knowing it can advance science.
A statist with blinders value selecting.