If you epistemologically accept rationalism (truths applicable to all possible worlds that are available a priori without sensory input), what implications does it hold? Anti-naturalism? Theism? Evidence that natural selection is insufficient to explain rational creatures?
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Wow that is a lot of weighty terms. I would bet a nickel there is no way an actual real philisophical discussion could take place throwing around such huge terms in such a capricous manner(and like it or not you are using philisophical terms).
But let's try to make this easy:
1) Plato, Theism, Rationalism, Hegel, "Anti-naturalism", Spinoza, Descartes, these things are bogus philisophical whooping boys - you set yourself in an uphill conversation if you assume anyone is one of these things unless they spell the terms out themselves. Moreover one is likely to take you using an ad hominem attack or a feeling of self satisfaction that you are not one of these things, not that you are or aren't, just don't use the terms on anyone unless they say otherwise as it is way to unproductive a start. Try to think along the lines of languages that try to make sense of the world. PS. Mises was not really a Kantian, he just used Kantian framework.
2) The world of the market process is one of "naturalism", "obviousness", egoism, "anti - theism", etc. We just acknowledge metaphysics / ontology in which the frame work would be something like: Egoism, Perspectivism, the world of Heraclitus, will to power, facts, obviousness, what can be said, ontological utility,etc.
3) Everything that you vaunt is still trumped by logic - you still need to have logic to use the scientific method - empiricism and rationalism are way to confusing of words here, these are just things to talk about our shared reality of obvious fact and ways to make sense of that reality. There is nothing inherently remarkable about either either method being used - in some systems they make sense - in other systems they are nonsense and non entities. Logic is nothing mystical, it just means we can make sense of stuff.
4) Assume that in the world of making sense into these things we just use a type of language to talk about them, no matter what it is you are trying to talk about. We are saying that most empiricle economics (or social science in general) is not economics, and in that system comes off as nonsense. The only thing it can be translated as is a practiced art mangment theory that works within the world of the kalediscopic market process.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Also on things like anarchy and "free market policy" stuff:
I am starting to think that all anarcho - capitalism is, is one saying "Eureka - i figured out the puzzle within this category" or something like taking a step back from the tile and seeing the picture in the mosaic. This is the same with evolution, or whatever. The problems arise when people use older outdated language to mix with the clearer picture like confused morality; such as calling something "freedom" or "ethics of property" instead of just recognizing the mechanics of things - sense and nonsense - the utility that breeds better - or whatever).
This gets confounded even more when it is just a mechanic that is recognized - hence it can not really be "advocated" in any rational sense. The minute it does it is no longer the mechanic but something of a "fixed idea" - a still snapshot in an ever changing comlex unique world that one can not rationally bring to any imperative (and that is exactly what our science recognizes). So when someone proposes a "free market solution", while my guess is it is usually better, it is still probably, at least to some degree, just the same practiced art manegment theory I mentioned earlier.
I suppose one can also say something like this:
Rationalism doesn't inform my world view - and that is the whole point. I inform my world view and "rationalism" is the unavoidable inter-subjective consequence.
What he said.
If one accepts rationalism as the basis for their world view (or as a part of it) the implications on theism would be that it would have to be disregarded as it could not be considered rational to believe in a god. Theism is not based in reason or knowledge but belief and faith. Rationalism is compatible with naturalism and I would not consider it be anti-naturalist. Natural selection never actually explained rational creatures per se. Natural selection was offered as a biological framework for the evolution and progress of living creatures. Therefore rationalism is compatible with natural selection because natural selection is rational.
Evidence
Why would natural selection fail to explain rationalism?
Rationality can be used as an argument against naturalism.
Here's how: natural selection evolved biological systems that reason imperfectly ; according to conventional neo-Darwinian theory, we only reason at all because it is adaptive to do so (i.e., it increases reproductive fitness)--for example, identifying causal relationships between a season and agricultural success helps produce more offspring.
Now, here's the problem: we can judge--evaluate--poor reasoning. But by what measure? Where does this transcendent realm of logic reside? Where do mathematical truths gain their compelling nature? We can't verify the Pythagorean theorem by searching underneath rocks. How could biomachines with feebly-equipped reasoning algorithms ever intuitively understand and conform to the normative demands of logic, mathematics, and rationality?
That is, locked away in a room, human consciousness can articulate truths that are fully independent of contingency or the observable world.
Furthermore, there is a normative component: if you are not reasoning properly, onlookers can judge your foibles according to a universal standard of logic. Where does this normative framework fit into a naturalistic ontology?
If you accept necessary truths (in modal logic, what is true in all possible worlds), then I would enjoy hearing a fully naturalistic account of how such truths are attainable in a fully physical universe.
Or, to rephrase it once more: in a universe of randomly-colliding, mindless particles, how does necessary logical truth come to exist and be acknowledged?
Well, this is Plantinga's argument against naturalism. I would say that there is probably good reason to believe that evolution favors something close to apprehending reality, but obviously the human mind draws misleading causal connections (like with Skinner's pigeon experiment). However, logic seems hard-wired to an extent, and if you were to study how it operates, you would discover the confounds like logical fallacies. I think the conversation is a bit misleading in and of itself, because we can't rely on anything else. So even if "blind chance" dealt us a bad hand, it's all we have to go on in our shared experience. I take logic on its face and I fail to see why it can't be an emergent description of reality that humans use as a tool. I mean, dolphins can do math to some extent, but I don't know how an appeal to a Platonic realm explains how they can count.
The standard is logic itself. It doesn't reside anywhere. I don't think anybody can "solve" the "starting point" of logic without admitting to "just 'cuz" argumentation. Like "that's just the way it works and if you don't realize that, you're being dense." And being a naturalist doesn't make one a reductionist per se.
How could biomachines with feebly-equipped reasoning algorithms ever intuitively understand and conform to the normative demands of logic, mathematics, and rationality
The scientific method is a useful sysyem to get things done, it says no more or less about naturalism than learning music theory to play piano. It's just stuff we use to do things, talk about things, or understand things.
but obviously the human mind draws misleading causal connections
Right like saying things evolve "imperfectly" - which makes no sense (imperfectly to whom? Nature, naturalism, what does this mean?). This can only get filtered off into ascetics or a very specific language of applied biology or something. Things don't reason imperfectly, they reason as themselves, which is what it is. The rightness or wrongness of it is aesthetics. All that matters is if someone else can make sense of what the thing is saying or not.
Stuff exists and there an indidual is able to talk about certain consequences of it. Moreover it is up to the individual to categorize and label that stuff and others to accept whether or not it is sensesible and useful. Arbitrary categorization and contextualization has to take place. And than it proceeds to be put it in any form, system, language, that makes sense to utilize at any given moment.
Logic does not reside anywhere - it is simply the unavoidable consequence of understanding something, or even the attainment of one's ends
Once again just get rid of the words rationality, naturalism, and all these other things. They are pretentious, goading, and lead to too much confusion. Dialogue will flow better without use of such words. All that matters is sense and nonsense in arbitrary empty languages.
A necessary person (Me) makes the phrase: "universe of randomly - colliding, mindless particles", and someone else understands it - as someone understands music but not random chaotic noise - or English and not the chirps of a bird - or The scientific method in biology and not "rationalism".
I don't think anybody can "solve" the "starting point" of logic without admitting to "just 'cuz" argumentation. Like "that's just the way it works and if you don't realize that, you're being dense." And being a naturalist doesn't make one a reductionist per se.
Or "a thing is itself". And one is not a reductionist, but a contextualizer.
And how to make sense of a non naturalistic world? Well I don't think I know what "non natural" or immaterism or whatever even means. I think words like determinist, atheist, naturalist, or whatever are word limiters in language to help filter out nonsense.
Science, mathematics, and naturalism - are nothing more than a string of symbols you are looking at on your computer screen as you read this and they have nothing to say, do, or offer...you however do. In fact, you name them.
In the most rational way possible, I conclude I have a Heathen worldview, but that's neither here nor there...
vive la resurreciton:Right like saying things evolve "imperfectly" - which makes no sense
Not what I said.
Natural selection did not evolve species imperfectly so that it could enjoy the counter effects of it. Natural selection is dictated by climate and environment and the requirements of life; survival or self preservation (even species preservation in some instances) and reproduction. In can be seen based on these factors that living organisms develop towards complexity and perfection and not away from it. But natural selection based on external factors could see fluctuations in the rate of progress towards physical perfection. So in that sense it is perfectly rational.
Lagrange multiplier: Or, to rephrase it once more: in a universe of randomly-colliding, mindless particles, how does necessary logical truth come to exist and be acknowledged?
A red pencil is still a pencil even if there is no consciousness to observe it. The colour however would be subjective as different species might see different colours. So even though they exist as mindless particles, physical reality has objective truths. The laws of thermodynamics are logical truths that exist irrespective of conscious observation.
The nature of rationality allows for logical truths to be changed once new knowledge is found. A rationality that does not allow for new information to change what is considered logical truths would not be rational. We don't realy understand gravity but we know it definitely exists.
Here's how: natural selection evolved biological systems that reason imperfectly
Sorry, my bad.
Jack Roberts:The laws of thermodynamics are logical truths that exist irrespective of conscious observation.
If we grant this, then in what sense do these "logical truths" actually "exist"? We can't measure them empirically, so how does a naturalist ontologically incorporate them into "real" existents? For instance, we don't spot them floating above particular lakes; we don't have to dig through moon rocks to discover them; we intuitively grasp the necessity of logical propositions.
Jack Roberts:The nature of rationality allows for logical truths to be changed once new knowledge is found. A rationality that does not allow for new information to change what is considered logical truths would not be rational.
If we suppose that there exist logical truths that are true independent of our contingent material universe (e.g., "A is larger than B; B is larger than C; hence, A is larger then C"), could "new knowledge" ever overturn such truths?