Just wondering.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Doubt the Action Axiom? Try to Disprove It
Is this a trick question?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
As Gero just pointed out... yes, it is a trick question/assertion.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Action Axiom: For all x, if x is human, then x acts.
The real meat is contained in the stipulative definitions of "human" and "action" given by Mises.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Smiling Dave: Is this a trick question?
Not that I know of.
Laotzu del Zinn: yes, it is a trick question/assertion.
yes, it is a trick question/assertion.
What makes it a trick question?
Solid_Choke: The real meat is contained in the stipulative definitions of "human" and "action" given by Mises.
What are those definitions?
Out of curiosity, why is it that only humans act? It seems to me that dogs act too and while their actions may have limited consequences their actions should be considered since their actions have consequences.
Micah71831: Out of curiosity, why is it that only humans act? It seems to me that dogs act too and while their actions may have limited consequences their actions should be considered since their actions have consequences.
Hume recognized that they do, and Mises agreed.
I don't just model other people on myself; I also do that with animals. I assume that you do the same.
I find this sort of argument disingenuous at best and downright discrediting at worst. I am highly disappointed with Hoppe's use of the idea of a "performative contradiction." The argument is simply worthless. It is not persuasive and it (necessarily) cannot prove anything that has not already been assumed. If it doesn't need to be assumed, then it is the conclusion to another argument resting on some other assumptions.
There are no absolutely necessary truths and I find the effort to establish the action axiom (as in the above article) or the self-ownership axiom (cf Hoppe) as absolutely necessary truths to be disturbingly theological.
Clayton -
>>There are no absolutely necessary truths
not necessarily.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
>>There are no absolutely necessary truths not necessarily.
Care to exhibit one?
I find this sort of argument disingenuous at best and downright discrediting at worst. I am highly disappointed with Hoppe's use of the idea of a "performative contradiction." The argument is simply worthless. It is not persuasive and it (necessarily) cannot prove anything that has not already been assumed. If it doesn't need to be assumed, then it is the conclusion to another argument resting on some other assumptions. There are no absolutely necessary truths and I find the effort to establish the action axiom (as in the above article) or the self-ownership axiom (cf Hoppe) as absolutely necessary truths to be disturbingly theological.
Clayton, would you care to go on? What is your view of the status of the action "axiom"?
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
I. Ryan: Micah71831: Out of curiosity, why is it that only humans act? It seems to me that dogs act too and while their actions may have limited consequences their actions should be considered since their actions have consequences. Hume recognized that they do, and Mises agreed. I don't just model other people on myself; I also do that with animals. I assume that you do the same.
Sorry, I should have quoted the person I was responding to:
Solid_Choke: Action Axiom: For all x, if x is human, then x acts.
((P->Q)&~Q)->~P
How about this:
I cannot say whether the sentence that follows is true or false. This sentence is false.
(Or am I yet again deeply mistaken...)
Micah71381: Sorry, I should have quoted the person I was responding to: Solid_Choke: Action Axiom: For all x, if x is human, then x acts.
Oh, no problem.
Clayton: >>There are no absolutely necessary truths not necessarily. Care to exhibit one? Clayton -
"There are no absolutely necessary truths."
lol, i already wrote 'not necessarily'
:-p
There are no meaningful truths that can be logically derived from it. It's just a bunch of gibberish with no semblance of falsifiability.
The very fact that you can't refute it without contradicting yourself should show you that it's nothing more than a rhetorical tool.
Do you, as a conscious being, act to achieve ends?
The question isn't how is that a trick question, but how could it NOT be.
Laotzu del Zinn: There are no meaningful truths that can be logically derived from it.
There are no meaningful truths that can be logically derived from it.
How do you know?
Laotzu del Zinn: It's just a bunch of gibberish with no semblance of falsifiability.
It's just a bunch of gibberish with no semblance of falsifiability.
Is there something wrong with not having any semblance of falsifiability?
Laotzu del Zinn: The very fact that you can't refute it without contradicting yourself should show you that it's nothing more than a rhetorical tool.
Why's that show that it's nothing more than a rhetorical tool?
Laotzu del Zinn: Do you, as a conscious being, act to achieve ends? The question isn't how is that a trick question, but how could it NOT be.
But that wasn't even my question.
I agree. Let's throw out the laws of logic, since they are neither falsifiable nor capable of being denied without contradiction.
Oh, wait.
MrSchnapps: the laws of logic, since they are neither falsifiable nor capable of being denied without contradiction
the laws of logic, since they are neither falsifiable nor capable of being denied without contradiction
Could you give me an example of a logic of law which fits that description?
You can do an indirect proof on the law of non-contradiction or excluded middle. It's basically a formal reductio.
E.g.:
1. (A v ~A) (excluded middle)
2. ~(A v ~A) A, IP (the start of the reductio)
3. ~A +~~A 2, (by DeMorgans)
4. ~A + A 3, Double negation.
5. (A v ~A) 2-4 IP
This is how the excluded middle is proven--by showing the absurdity of the contrary.
Humans act purposefully.
It's basically a formal reductio.
Is that the same as a proof by contradiction? If so, it's wonderful how widespread they are.
nirgrahamUK: lol, i already wrote 'not necessarily' :-p
Yes, you already answered. I merely clarified. :-p
SirThinkALot: Humans act purposefully.
"Human" in Mises' works is basically defined as an actor. So the above statement is tantamount to "Acting beings are acting beings."
I think people who virtually only read Rothbard, Hoppe, and others, and not Mises himself, would be surprised to know that Mises did not use the term "axiom" once in Human Action or Theory and History. And I don't think he ever used the term "action axiom".
Praxeology is not a grammatical exercise. It is not an unbundling of the meaning of a proposition. It is an unbundling of the meaning of a conception already present in all our minds.
Praxeology is the result of reflecting on the essence of the conception we think of when we hear the single word "action", not the result of reflecting on the meaning of the proposition "action is purposeful behavior".
When Mises brings in the term "purposeful behavior", he does so as a clarifying substitute for "action", just in case readers are thinking of another meaning of the word "action", not as the second half of proposition from which to derive theorems.
Just as much as we can say that "praxeology is the result of reflecting on the essence of action", and then just stop there, we can also say that "praxeology is the result of reflecting on the essence of purposeful behavior" and just stop there. We'd be saying the same thing.
For more on Mises' ideas about apriorism and praxeology, please read the paper in my sig.
Mises actually disagreed. In that section he's talking about how we can only make sense of the quasi-teleological (but not really teleological) processes in biology (e.g. animal and infant behavior, the operations of organs and plants, etc) by reference to our understanding of true teleology. He explicitly said that animals (and infants) don't act.
However, I think Hume was right, and Mises was wrong, with regard to higher animals.
The "action axiom" is non-falsifiable.
Anything and everything derived and deduced from this starting point is absolutely testable and falsifiable, no?
TANSTAAFL:The "action axiom" is non-falsifiable. Anything and everything derived and deduced from this starting point is absolutely testable and falsifiable, no?"
Anything and everything derived and deduced from this starting point is absolutely testable and falsifiable, no?"
Are you saying that implications deduced from the axiom that are sound and valid may be testable and falsifiable? If that is what you mean, the answer is no, especially on the subject of economics.
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Starting from the action axiom one can logically deduce that when there is inflation of the money supply wealth is transfered to those who get the new money first from those who get the new money last.
Is this hypothesis of wealth transfer testable?
I am having trouble seeing how it is not. Unless the only reason is that we cannot set up an experiment, but just because people are unwilling to conduct real life economic experiments does not mean economic hypothesis are not testable...
Even without conducting an actual experiment there should be some emperical evidence to support or refute the hypothesis?
tanstaafl, read the geometry analogy in the paper in my sig.
TANSTAAFL: Is this hypothesis of wealth transfer testable? I am having trouble seeing how it is not. Unless the only reason is that we cannot set up an experiment, but just because people are unwilling to conduct real life economic experiments does not mean economic hypothesis are not testable... Even without conducting an actual experiment there should be some empirical evidence to support or refute the hypothesis?
Even without conducting an actual experiment there should be some empirical evidence to support or refute the hypothesis?
when you make a statement like " whenever there is inflation, X get the new money first" you have to hold everything else constant ( centeris paribus). But in the real world, there is never a state where everything is held constant so you can test the law. Since there are always things changing in the world, you can't make up Econ. laws based on experiment or empirical evidence. Now does Praxeological Economics ignore empirical evidence? No, but economists should only use empirical evidence to ILLUSTRATE a law...
A quick good read about this is Austrian Economics, Praxeology, and Intervention" by Walter Block and William Barnett...
As the source mentioned above says: Economics is not a hard science that needs evidence in order for something to be proven... It is a praxeological science where the knowledge of Economics is apriori... Loosely speaking, the difference between Austrian Economics and Neoclassical is that Austrians stick with the statement that Economics is apriori knowledge, we already KNOW economic laws, we do not need to test them in order to prove them, but we can use emperical situations in order to illustrate the law of course. But neoclassical(positivists) hold that one can never hold the knowledge of laws because in theory the "next time" could always turn out to be the first time that the expected result did not occur; that is, all truths are tentative and subject to be disproven by the next event. Therefore, there are no laws, only provisinoal hypotheses. (Some parts are loosely quoted from the source above.)
For example: Do you need emperical evidence to prove that All Bachelors are unmarried? The answer is "no you don't." It is a fact that does not need any evidence to support it. But can I use evidence to support the fact that "All Bachelors are unmarried?" Of course I can, it would be a waste of time, since I already know the statement is fact, but I can go out in the world and ask every bachelor if they are unmarried. And with those results, I can illustrate the claim... Same thing applies the Economic laws...
Yep, same thing but different name.
The more I try to find a rationalization for it, the more I see the concept of a priori as nonsense. It seems to be only a priori after the fact of language... in other words, it is, in fact a posteriori after all. For instance:
For example: Do you need emperical evidence to prove that All Bachelors are unmarried?
Are all bachelors of arts unmarried? The answer is no. Do all humans act with a purpose? Idk, do vegetative humans? Fetuses? Does purpose mean clearly defined goal, or just to do something, which is just what action is in the first place.. in which case, why even bring it up? You're basically just saying acting actors act...
Even 1+1=2... what is a "one?" Can you show me?
when you make a statement like " whenever there is inflation, X get the new money first" you have to hold everything else constant ( centeris paribus). But in the real world, there is never a state where everything is held constant so you can test the law. Since there are always things changing in the world, you can't make up Econ. laws based on experiment or empirical evidence. Now does Praxeological Economics ignore empirical evidence? No, but economists should only use empirical evidence to ILLUSTRATE a law... A quick good read about this is Austrian Economics, Praxeology, and Intervention" by Walter Block and William Barnett... As the source mentioned above says: Economics is not a hard science that needs evidence in order for something to be proven... It is a praxeological science where the knowledge of Economics is apriori... Loosely speaking, the difference between Austrian Economics and Neoclassical is that Austrians stick with the statement that Economics is apriori knowledge, we already KNOW economic laws, we do not need to test them in order to prove them, but we can use emperical situations in order to illustrate the law of course.
As the source mentioned above says: Economics is not a hard science that needs evidence in order for something to be proven... It is a praxeological science where the knowledge of Economics is apriori... Loosely speaking, the difference between Austrian Economics and Neoclassical is that Austrians stick with the statement that Economics is apriori knowledge, we already KNOW economic laws, we do not need to test them in order to prove them, but we can use emperical situations in order to illustrate the law of course.
In other words, we cannot verify if our conclusions are correct. It must merely be taken on faith that the "laws" are in fact that... tho in scientific terms, that would be the opposite of "law."
A priori, for any benefit it has in finding truth, has no possible means of verifying it. Only through empirical search can we even begin to define the terms on which we base any a priori knowledge with a positive truth value.
"Only through empirical search can we even begin to define the terms on which we base any a priori knowledge with a positive truth value."
Please prove this empirically.
Btw Mises doesn't say that all humans necessarily act. He says that humans can act under certain conditions. I just did.
I was wondering about that.
Isn't he assuming that MOST of what they do is acting? Or else how does the law of diminishing returns and the law of benefit of division of labor and of comparative advantage follow from just assuming one human acts once in a million years?
Like Vincent Bugliosi added on to Lincoln, you can't fool all of the people all of the time, but you can fool most of the people most of the time.
Daniel James Sanchez: Mises actually disagreed. In that section he's talking about how we can only make sense of the quasi-teleological (but not really teleological) processes in biology (e.g. animal and infant behavior, the operations of organs and plants, etc) by reference to our understanding of true teleology. He explicitly said that animals (and infants) don't act. However, I think Hume was right, and Mises was wrong, with regard to higher animals.
What's the difference between quasi action and true action?