Why is it that something that is verified as a priori true? Especially considering that everything which we put into practice or predict are a priori. If something was determined a posteriori then you would still need to use a priori reasoning to actually put it into any practicle application before the fact.
This assertion is what I am questioning. How do you define purpose such that humans are and the earth is not? Scientifically, both can be broken down into smaller and smaller parts that eventually lead us to quarks/strings/whatever. Why is it that a human has purpose but the earth doesn’t? Again, I am okay with an arbitrary definition qualifying humans as purposeful and the rest not, I only argue that a scientific/logical definition of “purpose” does not exist and any “line in the sand” used to define purpose will be arbitrary (which is not a problem to me).
Psychologists have and can make many relevant insights into human behavior. Also, humans are pretty abysmall at predicting natural disasters so I would argue that geology/meteorology is less effective at predicting the earth than psychology is at predicting human action. Lastly, psychological occurances are universal, we just don’t understand all of the variables yet. Just as the natural disasters are universal but we don’t understand all of the variables yet (or can’t calculate them).
The idea is that considering what face they show as “actions” is not the most useful mode of analysis, or it is no more useful than considering their design or their structure. (But since they are unpredictable, gamblers often come to see the dice as having a mind or personality.)
Micah-
Is the Earth conscious of itself? Does it ever show signs of being conscious of itself?
A statement that is an optimistic belief system, certainly not provable.
If you would read Danny’s latest blog post, that would help ensure we are all on the same page here. If it’s too long to read now, you could just skip to the segment titled Radical Anti-Teleology, which seems tailor-made for the questions you are asking.
Why is it that something that is verified as a priori true? Especially considering that everything which we put into practice or predict are a priori. If something was determined a posteriori then you would still need to use a priori reasoning to actually put it into any practicle application before the fact.
That’s my point. A priori reasoning is only useful as a means of discussing how we discuss things. Only emprical reasoning can verify that a truth claim has any factual basis.
Truths derived a priori, that are not based on repeated observable phenomena, are inherently arbitrary and linguistic. Any attempts to apply them to the real world will have to be based on faith.
How come you changed your name, Laotzu?
Sure, and equally as unprovable as natural disasters. So we are no closer to defining why humans have purpose but the earth does not.
As AJ said, you should probably check out Danny’s post he linked to. It addresses your comment.
One is simply a more useful mode of analysis than the other.
Do you realize that if you derive general truths from repeated observable phenomena you are making an a priori assumption?
If you arbitrarily define conscious as what humans are then no (and I have no further argument). If you try to scientifically base your claim of consciousness on acting to meet it’s goals then I can see an argument for the earth being conscious. If there is a fire it rains to put it out is a simplistic example of this. We can’t define what the earth “wants” because we are part of it and therefore by definition we can’t understand it but as George Carlin put it, “maybe the earth wants plastic”.
If cognitive neuroscience provided a scientifically backed explanation of why a human does a particular action or, using similar science, could predict an upcoming human action I would prefer to rely on that rather than a metaphysical consciousness. At the moment neuroscience is in it’s infancy so we are not very good at predicting human action when compared to predicting the actions of a plant so we are forced to use alternative methods of prediction (fuzzy logic, etc.).
This brings me back to my original suggestion that purpose be defined by predictability. We can predict everything a plant will do so it has no purpose. We can predict very little of what a human will do so it has purpose. Though, by this definition the earth has purpose and I am guessing that most here will argue that it does not so again I will go back to the suggestion that purpose be defined as “what humans have” and leave it at that since that is what seems to be the desired use of the word. Trying to scientifically define it will lead the word to encompasing more than humans and higher intelligence animals which seems to be an undesireable definition.
“If cognitive neuroscience provided a scientifically backed explanation of why a human does a particular action or, using similar science, could predict an upcoming human action I would prefer to rely on that rather than a metaphysical consciousness.”
Of course. And if I can tell that statistically a female is 99% likely to come home with me if she asks if I have any pets, I would prefer to rely on that rather than trying to figure out what her decision-making process is.
"That’s my point. A priori reasoning is only useful as a means of discussing how we discuss things. Only empirical reasoning can verify that a truth claim has any factual basis.
Truths derived a priori, that are not based on repeated observable phenomena, are inherently arbitrary and linguistic. Any attempts to apply them to the real world will have to be based on faith."
But In this case you cannot determine something ever that is not based on faith. People who build bridges have faith that their sciences and maths will stand up to the challenge of the real world, they have in the past done so, so the principle which they derived from this is that in the future their math will tell them that their bridges will stand up to the real world, but they then determine how to apply this to each situation through a priori reasoning. Therefore the term “faith” which you are using becomes practically useless, each time that you type upon your keyboard each one of your actions is “faithful” and based upon an a principle which was derived a posteriori and then put in as an assumption and principle into your a priori reasoning.
So tell me, if every action and application of principle is based upon a priori reasoning then what gripe do you have with it?
If we could a posteriori prove that all human actions were rational then suddenly you would have no gripe with any Austrian reasoning. You know that your actions are rational, there is absolutely no reason to believe that those around you are not and plenty of reasons to believe that they are so I don’t exactly understand your gripe with the principle that all human beings are rational.
Also as for the idea that a priori truths are based upon faith when they are implemented and therefore are “arbitrary and linguistic” is incorrect because of the fact that a proper reasoning must be true. All bachelors are unmarried, therefore if I ask a bachelor to marry me, and he knows he is a bachelor, he cannot truthfully say to me that he cannot because he is married, assuming he understands the English language and is conscious of what he is saying.
That entire example is necessarily true, there is under no circumstances one in which it could be different in our world or any other(assume that I spent another paragraph or so including any technicalities)
I’m only starting to get into Human Action, but from what I understand Mises calls it methodological dualism because science hasn’t advanced to the point where we can analyze the motions of all the chemicals, electrical signals, etc… and derive some sense and meaning from that. Whether free will truly exists or whether we are simply “following” physics doesn’t matter because we are dealing with the emergent behavior which is the same either way. We can only adequately deal with human action through this dualism, but Mises did not rule out that science may one day advance to the point where we could look at a brain state and reasonably impute how it would evolve.
My opinion is that the difficulty of this is not trivial: we’d have to have a computer significantly more powerful than the brain in order to really determine what a given brain would do and essentially simulate it brute-force. Neuroscience can give us insights and help illuminate why people act in certain ways, but unless you can somehow tap all the brains in the world and you have the ability to essentially simulate them then you’re left with Mises’ approach.
My point was just that we already do have and use alternatives to praxeological reasoning about other people, so even if it were possible in principle for neuroscience to make such advances, that would not be the end of praxeological reasoning.
I do not think this addresses the issue of praxeology at all… You attack the general statements of praxeology (“Not to be sophomoric, but… duh.”) but I do not see you point here… How does this help your case?
This was Milton Friedman’s main criticism towards Mises and Hayek but they both defended their side perfectly. ( Mises article and Hayek article ). Another great praxeology -vs- positivist article is by Roderick Long, “Realism and Abstraction in Economics: Aristotle and Mises Versus Friedman”…
That’s absolutely right, Daniel. I don’t think most people understand that empirical methods must make radical suppositions in order to even begin to do their work. Nevertheless, there are a host of other non-empirical things that Hoppe points out we have rational warrant to hold to.
To restrict the domain of knowledge to things that can be discovered empircally is inherently self-contradictory. Why is it so hard to see that?