LOL. Are you the same laminustacitus who was babbling about how we can’t understand the so called wave-particle duality ?
Sorry, according to you the natural sciences are compatible with miraculous and illogical phenomena such as the ‘wave-particle’ duality. You can’t invoke natural science to illustrate objectivity.
It’s true that ‘economists’ can make logical analyses that are ‘value-free’. An ‘economist’ can say : if you do X, Y will follow, but in reality, anybody who sticks to logic can make that kind of analysis, and people using common sense are not usually considered scientists, so I don’t see why economists should.
On the other hand, academic economists bypass logic all the time so they don’t qualify as scientists and they don’t even qualify as honest, sensible laymen. They are just propagandists.
You’ve clearly got an axe to grind. Mises and Rothbard both “bypassed” logic, to use your term. You seem to believe that libertarians are both morally and intellectually superior to mainstream economists, it’s silly. Every scientist holds value, the fact that the biologist wishes to cure cancer doesn’t mean he’s not a scientist, even if he ultimately ends up promoting the wrong means to cure cancer. Likewise, the economist who wishes to cure poverty isn’t merely a propagandist if he choose the wrong means.
Your analysis lacks nuance entirely, go read Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and you’ll gain a valuable insights: economists and other scientists can rarely fully eluciadate the laws and assumptions of their discipline. Rather, they learn them through assimilation as a result of their education. This means they don’t care for epistemology, they’re just taught that science progresses as a result of applying a particular methodlogy to economic problems and they then proceed to use this methodology. Look at interviews with Herbener and Block for a good illustration.
Did I not refer to methodological dualism? Do you not know its basic tenets, or are you being purposefully dense to try, and make it seem I advocate quantative economics?
History is definately not a science. But, economics leads to conclusion that are necessarily true about human experience, and it also does so by enlarging our knowledge about the world; therefore, it is a science.
Both are sciences, esspecially if economics is to be understood as praxeological, and there is no way around that truth.
A statement which is completely objective, and yet in the realm of the social sciences includes: man acts, and its praxeoogical conclusions.
You are wrongfully equivocating being objective with being a priori.
Rothbard is wrong.
I would say that they are irrational, and insane - but, that is my opinion, not an objective truth. If they desire having socialism so be it.
I do not. Economic theory is a theory for describing social phenomena, as a scientist, I do not give an opinion onto the use of these theories, just that they will hold true.
So be it., and quite honestly I personally, though this is merely my opinion, value theories for their validity more than their applicibility. Nevertheless, pure economic theory is not meant to be applied, it is meant to describe phenomena - what others decide to do with those theories is a matter outside of the realm of science.
‘We see, therefore, that Mises’ attempt to advocate laissez-faire while remaining value-free, by assuming that all of the advocates of government intervention will abandon their position once they learn of its consequences, falls completely to the ground.‘’
Well thank god for proving my argument. People value wealth therefore accepting this statement and then establishing theory on it is explictly a value statement.
Its a chapter you admitted you haven’t read so of course we are having these complications. Why not take an hour or less and actually read what you are criticizing.
Of course I have, economics is an a priori science, that means it can be learned without experience. Just like math, I can learn calculus without ever reading a textbook, to give you an analogy.
What is so difficult to grasp about this is beyond me.
Only, you denied it above. So which is it? You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Yes, I’ve read it twice now. Once a year ago, and just now.
I’m going to put this in very simple terms: Rothbard is talking ethics, Lam and I are talking economic science.
That’s a descriptive statement, I just think you don’t understand the subject matter you’re talking about, in other words, go hit the books because you’re clueless.
If Rothbard were to say that economic science can say: people should value certain things, then he would be proving your point. All he is doing is making a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one.
It’s a book on ethics, you stupid fuck, not economics. Seriously, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
“value theories for their validity more than their applicability”: So theories that don’t happen in the real world and only in a person’s head is what you value. ok[*-)]
“pure economic theory is not meant to be applied”: A theory has to be supported by evidence or it might as well be a fantasy and so if an economic theory can’t be applied and thus doesn’t happen might as well be a fantasy, but… ok that’s you.
“meant to describe phenomena”: Yet it can’t be applied, but you are describing something being applied. Dog-chasing it’s tail, but… ok that’s you.
“what others decide to do with those theories”: Yet you said they describe phenomena so the theory is already describing what somebody is doing. That’s what economics does. Either describes the market or socially experiments in the market (socialism).
I fail to see why you need to include an example of natural sciences when we are not even discussing it
What a wonderfully ambiguous definition. When I take that definition and apply it to history then history can show that governmental tyranny leads to a conclusion that is necessarily true about human experience, enlarges our knowledge about the world and therefore disproves your own statement that history is not a science.
But you fail to acknowledge the differences between the two. Just because they are sciences does not imply they can achieve objectivity.
The action of a man is objective, but not the outcomes.Nor are the why’s and how’s.
Explain
Care to back that up with something more then substantial?
So then why be here? Why not with the Socialists? Or the Keynesians? Or the Monetarists? If you have no value in your economical theory, then why be an Austrian? Do you use economic theory to combat Federal Reserve theory? They are economists and obviously know what they are doing is destructive so according to you, you should not be speaking out against them for that would be entering in your values? I must ask you this and it will be blunt but what good are you to a movement if you have no ethical system behind your theory? If you are completely ambivilent to the happenings of others?
Well, yeah, the whole of economic theory is “in your head”, so presumably.
That’s funny you should say such things, Mises spent the better part of his career fighting such misguided ideas.
All he did was draw a correct distinction between thymology and praxeology. If you don’t understand what he’s talking about, that’s fine, just don’t presume that he suffers from the same lack of knowledge
But my statement was this. What is economics without humanity? Therefore there is no one there to engage in a priorism. Therefore economics is a human phenomena therefore anything that is producted on economical theory is created in the minds of subjective individuals. There is no blob called ‘economics’ that can exist beyond the minds of man.
Read above
.
The chapter is on utilitarian free-market economics. Not utilitarian ethical systems. In fact Rothbard makes a point of that in the chapter.
‘Utilitarian economists, even more than their philosophic confreres, are eager to make “scientific” and “value free” pronouncements on public policy Believing, however, that ethics are purely arbitrary and subjective, how may economists then take policy positions? This chapter will explore ways in which utilitarian free-market economists presume to favor a free market while attempting to refrain from taking ethical positions.6’
So are you conceding or not that Mises’ economic theory [or at least to some degree] is based on the premise that humanity values wealth therefore the best economical theory that gives them that is the right economic theory?
Firstly, do not speak to me in such a manner. You are a moderator and even though I am not, I will not tolerate that language.
Secondly, are you at least conceding that you read the chapter?
You are misunderstanding me: what I meant was that I (keep in mind this is an opinion) value theories more because they are true than because I can apply them. For instance, I am interested in mathematics, and the physical sciences not because I will be able to use them, I highly doubt I will need basic calculus after my studies, but because they are true (mathematics), or because they efficiently explain phenomenon (the physical sciences).
Keep in mind that pure economic theory is praxeological, and therefore a priori. Nevertheless, what I meant was that a theory is created to explain phenomena; surely, the originator might have been motivated by the quest to solve world hunger, but the theory, though, is still in respect to phenomena.
Language confusion, I meant “applied” in the sense of applying an economic theory in policy.
“Doing”, and “doing with these theories” are two different ideas that need not be equivocated.
I’d argue with your wording, but to do so I would need to digress from the matter; still, I agree with your sentiment here, not necessarily the expression of it, though.
To be honest, Wilderness, you have peered far too deeply in a remark that I intended to be merely a expression of my subjective sentiments that was more of a digression than an argument. In fact, I would even say that you largely misinterpreted what I said, a misinterpretation that was largely the fault of ambigious wording on my part with application, and its derivatives being esspecially at fault.
not because I disagree with them (where I do) but rather because they are wrong (where they are). perhaps you find something not to like in something so straightforward? obviously I do not dismiss the entire economics profession since I am an avid follower of Austrian’s and their fellow travellers (when they are on solid ground…) . obviously I will dismiss work that is methodologically/logically flawed, where this becomes apparent to me. shocking! outrageous!
Einstein was a Genius that advocated Socialism. do you get my point? maybe the people you favour that I dont favour (whomeever they are) might be clever (in general) but not clever in the particular topic to which I am sensitive to knowledge and cleverness (economics)
what are you saying? that I should dismiss keynes ‘with difficulty’ ?!? perhaps you mean that I should not dismiss him at all but rather adopt his ideas. I could soon become as intellectual as the Steve Keen that recently graced our board…
to be honest Its too much of an effort to detect what you do mean in this regard. I hope you at least know what you mean.
nonsense! your formula… if you dont understand in great detail some variant of a large set of possible fallacies which have formerly passed for the supposed cutting edge-of knowledge, then one catnt understand work done with sound methodology with a greater resemblance to truth…
I suppose all med students should spend 3 years prepping with witchdoctors out in that place that is torn out from your map?
how well do you understand Islam that you have rejected it in favour of your christianity. be honest.?
i suppose popularity and world renown seem attractive…
yes witchdoctors and med students I get it… but also… i do have textbooks by Mankiw and Varian so perhaps attempting to define me as completely ignorant of neoclassicals isn’t a winner?
Yes, and you’re an objective scientist. NOT. Whom do you think you are fooling ?
Really ? They showed the contradictions in socialism and conservatism - pure logic.
You mean, advocating coercion - what the mainstream does - is the morally superior thing ? Give me a break. Besides, you reject morality. You are the typical nihilist who parrots whatever dogma his religious masters tell him to parrot.
Your opinion.
Try to use your brain ? Instead of parroting what Kuhn says ?
Yes, you do have a point there, but it doesn’t mean what you think it means. “Don’t care for epistemology” means they are philosophically bankrupt and don’t care for truth. It should be kinda obvious that ‘scientists’ should be people who want scientia, i.e. knowledge. However if they don’t bother to consider whether they are finding truth or not, cause they don’t give a damn about ‘epistemology’, it follows they don’t give a damn about truth itself.
What your ‘scientists’ want is not truth, but a cushy ‘job’ as propagandists.
LOL. Did you reinvent calculus by yourself Mr. Newton ? Or instead learn it [from someone else] ?
I wonder if a majority within the Austrian economics realizes the ‘value-free’ argument and denies it…what would the value-free individuals acutally do? Interject value statement thereby disproving their own theory or just sit silently?
I’m discussing science, and the relation of objectivism in respect to science.
History cannot escape the fallacy of causation; ergo, before we interpret history we need a theory, there’s one true thing about history, and that is we can’t learn anything about it.
Being a science presupposes objectivity.
Economic theory does not care why a man does something, only that he does so.
Will do:
Here, one can be objective in respect to the solar system without being a priori. A science need not be a priori, though, it just need be objective.
I have, all of my remarks about wertfreitheit in economics could be considered in this light.
I study Austrian economics because it is true, because it is the most efficient describer of economic phenomena.
The Federal Reserve is the wrong means for attaining the ends of a prosperous economy: a wertfrei critique of the Federal Reserve.
Or mabye my opponents truthfully believe that they are correct.
Not necessarily, my above critique is wertfreiheit, or I could step outside of the realm of science, and give a moral critique of it.
I care about theory, I care about the validity of the economic science; libertarianism is second to that, and one could even say informed by the former.