These people think they are totally debunking AE and even Misesean praxeology as pure religion. Where do they go wrong?
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ar/uniquely_awful_others/
Why anarchy fails
http://mises.org/daily/5158/Mises-on-Mind-and-Method
From the article:
"However, Mises specifically predicts economic outcomes based on self-interest as, well, actual self-interest. For instance, on page 763, he proclaims that price controls will lead to rationing by non-price means. But this is only true if the provider of the good in question is attempting to maximize profit; if the producer is willing to take a hit in the wallet out of the goodness of his heart for his customers' well-being, as Mises' tautological definition of self-interest allows, a small price ceiling could conceivably have no effect."
Some people say that Austrians isolate themselves instead of going out and defending their ideas, and I've honestly wondered about that myself some times, but it's really hard to try to have some kind of discussion when you supposed intellectual opponent is that dumb.
I kind of stopped reading at "theism". Smacks of pretended refinement right there.
Sounds like he's saying that praxeology is religion because it's not testable.
Fred, the funny thing about the section you quoted, the author just made a praxeological conclusion. Mises never said man merely acted in self-interested. He said man acts. He can act in terms of selfless or selfish concerns. I swear, people just don't know anything about what they criticize.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
I stopped at the statement that humans act in a rational manner. Mises has never said that humans act "rationally". Mises said only that humans act and defined act as using means to acheive a purpose. Neither the purpose or means need be considered rational.
For example: The immortal being from "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" acted in that he/she/it used means a space ship and a computer listing to accomplish a purpose to insult every intelligent being in the universe in alphabetical order. The propose was neither noble or rational but it was a purpose none the less and because the immortal being used limited means then to Mises the being was acting.
ladyattis: Fred, the funny thing about the section you quoted, the author just made a praxeological conclusion. Mises never said man merely acted in self-interested. He said man acts. He can act in terms of selfless or selfish concerns. I swear, people just don't know anything about what they criticize. Really depressing stuff. It might not even be worth addressing. The guy just doesn't know anything what he's talking about. | Post Points: 5
"Fred, the funny thing about the section you quoted, the author just made a praxeological conclusion. Mises never said man merely acted in self-interested. He said man acts. He can act in terms of selfless or selfish concerns. I swear, people just don't know anything about what they criticize""" "":""""dasdfdassdf""
So tell me if it was a praxeological critique does that mean Mises improperly applied his own methodology?
I have an idea of the real answer but I'd like to hear someone else say it
Whoever wrote that has no idea what they're talking about. If one even poses the question, "What if 2+2 doesn't equal 4 in the real world?", then they're either being difficult or are unbelieveably ignorant. Two plus two must always equal four, just as A must always be equal to A. It simply cannot be otherwise.
If methological individualism is to be discounted, not only would we have to do away with every school of economics (marginal utility can only be arrived to from praxeology), but we would also have to forsake philosophy, math, and logic.
Actually, Mises did bring rationale into it. For a very good reason. He was making the case for unpredictability and inability to centrally govern market forces by pointing out that what may seem irrational to one person can seem quite rational to another. Think of the phrase "I can't believe that idiot invested in DuPont". Well, it seems crazy to the person saying it, but to the guy who made the investment, he certainly made the investment for a reason. However, Mises did not ever say that there was any standard of rationality, which is what the writer implies. Hogwash.
Two plus two must always equal four, just as A must always be equal to A. It simply cannot be otherwise.
2 plus 2 must not always be four. It can be 22. It could be 2 and 2.
What is a 2? What is a plus? You can say you have 1 apple, but in reality you have a thing made up of 1000s of cells, aromas, flavors, and even different kinds of apples.
Math and logic are ways of describing how we talk about things. They're not descriptions of reality in and of themselves. It's not like science, where gravity refers to an actual thing. There are no "ones" in the universe. It's just a thing we generalize about so as better to discuss things.
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
First the quote. A will equal A, but it can also equal B, if B is equal to A.
We can apply that logic to the apple thing. Firstly, an apple is not made up of different kinds of apples, but since this is obviously a wording mistake, we'll skip it. You CAN say you have an apple, because an apple is something that refers to an actual thing...the apple in question. The NUMBER of apples is mathematical, but the apples are fact, and as such can be enumerated. A "2" is nothing. Two apples is something. It doesn't matter that it is made up of thousands of other arbitrarily labeled divisions. That is precisely the point in numbers not being anything found in nature. They are tools to clarify our understanding of nature. I can demonstrate with the reverse of what you said. Your claim that "in reality you have a thing made up of 1000s of cells" can be reversed. I can say, "In reality, you have thousands of things made of an apple." The viewpoint is arbitrary. The fact of the existence of the whole or the parts comprising the sum is not. Math IS a description of reality. A "2" is a sum. An enumeration. A value attached to either an intangible enumeration, such as part of a formula, or something real, such as a length, an apple, or surf boards. A "plus" links mathematical assignments incrementally. We do not generalize about numbers and mathematics; we use them to generalize the universe.
That's the point tho. 2+2=4 doesn't actually describe any existing "thing." It is a way of discussing actual existing things. I can say 2 flaggles plus 2 wrigwarx = 4 ramalramalramals.... that doesn't mean anything. What you are doing is discussing how the relationship of flaggles to wrigwarx changes over time. Math is only scientific when it deals with actual existing things. It has no validity on its' own, per se.
1 Holy Spirit + 1 God + 1 Jesus = 1 God... that's true and valid math if you're a catholic.
I'm not trying to dismiss logic or math per se. What I am saying is that (to touch upon Danny's article) geometry is irrelevant on its own. No matter what truths it claims to derive, it is only relevant in its ability to be applied to actual reality, to make or describe actually existing shapes. Maybe if Sen. Clay had been there in the ancient past, the Greeks would have relied more upon empiricism. Maybe, just maybe, we then would have figured out the ACTUAL rotations of the planets, and the layout of the solar system, without the 2000 years of absolute bollox and "truth by pure coincedence" between the philosophic, and the scientific revolution.
What is a 2? What is a plus?
Err, '2' is not a generalization and neither is a '+' sign. They describe objective things. '2' is a specific quantity (e.g. two apples) and '+' refers to addition. Thus 2 +2 must equal 4. It's a matter of language. You can change the language and argue that 2 +2 can equal 22, if only the '+' sign meant that you put the two numbers together and that's your new number... but we're writing in the English language, so until you define the language you want to write in your post doesn't make much sense.