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
"I'm not trying to dismiss logic or math per se."
Nope. You weren't. You were actually pretty spot on except for the generalization bit. Just clarifying. It's interesting to note that, because of these very reasons, superstring theory is nothing but a highly complex example of begging the question.
Valject:It's interesting to note that, because of these very reasons, superstring theory is nothing but a highly complex example of begging the question.
Please explain.
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.
What is a "quantity?" Can you grab a "quantity?" Can I give you one of my "quantities?" A quanitity is merely an abstraction we make to better understand a dynamic world. It is merely the use of count nouns to describe intangible things.
Thus 2 +2 must equal 4
Or 22, or 2 sets of 2.
It's a matter of language
Ya, that's the point.
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.
I'm not butchering the language. The philospher is when he tries to make it rigid and stops using language how we use language in the everyday world. To a catholic 1+1+1=1 and that is perfectly valid to them.
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
But it is a different language game with different rules that you don't enter.
No matter what, you are doing abstract modeling, this is inescapable. What matters is the languages you choose to enter.
Believe it or not, I can grab two apples versus three apples. Language might be an abstraction, but what it describes is not.
Language is supposed to be precise enough for one to understand what the other person is trying to get accross. You are butchering language by arguing that something like a '+' sign can have multiple interpretations (which is absurd).
1+1 could = 0 but only if you redefine what "+" means. You would have to say that though and I think that's what JMFC is saying.
What is a 3? Can you show me a 3? If not, it's an abstraction; a mere generalization we use to understand the universe so we don't go crazy. You can grab 50 apples, you will still rely upon count nouns to express what it is, exactly, that you have grabbed.
anguage is supposed to be precise enough for one to understand what the other person is trying to get accross. You are butchering language by arguing that something like a '+' sign can have multiple interpretations (which is absurd).
1+1+1=1 to a catholic. If you want to refute that, try. You can't.
Sometimes people also use + to mean "and," rather than explicitly in addition to (like a lion + a tiger, which could or could not = liger). What about Pert Plus?
1+1+1=1 to a catholic
4 legs + 1 top = 1 table
What is a 3? Can you show me a 3? If not, it's an abstraction; a mere generalization we use to understand the universe so we don't go crazy.
And that is what a Human being, or anything else is in any scientific catagory. It is an abstract model in a set language, with set rules that you choose to enter or speak.
I can show you my hand, a 3 , or a human being for our purpose.
Also note, poetry is a language too. Not that poetic language is or isn't being used, but it is a language unto itself.
Also have you read Danny's article?
Also, in Bolean Algebra (Base 2 modular arithmetic) 1+1=1 and 1+1=0 are both true.
And that is what a Human being, or anything else is in any scientific catagory. It is an abstract model in a set language, with set rules that you choose to enter or speak. I can show you my hand, a 3 , or a human being for our purpose. Also note, poetry is a language too. Not that poetic language is or isn't being used, but it is a language unto itself.
You and I need no communicability for you to understand gravitation... just drop an apple. Maths are not scientific in their own right. Only when applied to real existing things does it become scientific. As I have said, 1+1+1=1 is a valid form of math to a catholic.
Yes. I think it is riddled with circular defintions and other fallacies and amounts to nothing more than an appeal to geometry (geometry works, so economics does too). I mean, I get that we need logic... duh. I get that we developed geometry a priori. But as I said above, perhaps if there were a Sen. Clay back then, the Greeks would have relied more upon empiricism, and we wouldn't have had nothing more than "truth by pure coincedence" up until the scientific revolution.
As I have said, 1+1+1=1 is a valid form of math to a catholic.
In poetry or theology sure, whateves. Not in algebra
You and I need no communicability for you to understand gravitation... just drop an apple
I'm sorry but everything you are saying still falls into something I have to contextualize and make sense of first. Perspectivism exists, ontology exists. This is a self evident fact. Science / empiricism is a model, just like everything else, this can not be denied or you are getting really loopy. There is no reason to care for it unless you find it useful.
We could have evolved a plethora of ways to describe things or model things in a different way, but we didn't (or if we did it got bred out), it doesn't matter anyway and is beside the point, so here we are. Mises addresses this anyway in HA, I think
"To a catholic 1+1+1=1 "
Is this a reference to the trinity?
What do you think intersubjectivity even is? Honestly, if we could use an approach like medicine, it would just be rendered into a field like biology or something and not economics. We would have doctors and mechanics and not economists, and any worry about the social sciences simply wouldn't exist.
But we don't work that way. And the parts of us that do are outside the sphere of what we study. And the parts that will work that way in the future, those too will no longer be economic issues
In Bolean algebra (base 2 arithmetic) 1+1=1 is as true as 1+1=0.
I'm sorry but everything you are saying still falls into something I have to contextualize and make sense of first. Perspectivism exists, ontology exists. This is a self evident fact. Science / empiricism is a model, just like everything else, this can not be denied or you are getting really loopy. There is no reason to care for it unless you find it useful. We could have evolved a plethora of ways to describe things or model things in a different way, but we didn't (or if we did it got bred out), it doesn't matter anyway and is beside the point, so here we are. Mises addresses this anyway in HA, I think
I understand all this, and it is certainly valid, but I think it's mistaking the forest for the trees.
But maths are not valid in and of themselves. They only develop utility, for science anyway, when they are tested against the physical world. 1+1+1=1 is a valid math. But you certainly won't find it applicable to any existing real world phenomena. We can develop tons of things a priori.
But, and I did not see this addressed in Danny's article. there is no way of knowing their truth value unless we can test them against the real world. And, once again, Danny (maybe I missed it) doesn't address this, other than to appeal to geometry. In fact, he says the opposite. He says that if real world phenomena contradict the "laws" of economics, then you must have done it wrong.
His analogy of geometry works because I can physically show you it does. If you found something that contradicts it, I can physically show you what you did wrong. You can't do that with economics. We must rely upon pure faith that the "laws" of economics are, in fact laws.