-
" what scholarly literature had Rothbard written that Mises had read on the topic?" Rothbard attended Mises' seminar EVERY SINGLE WEEK FOR YEARS. Are you suggesting Mises was unaware of Rothbard's views?
-
" I am wrong because Machlup says so? are you lecturing us on cultism now?" Yeah, I'm one of the two members of the "Machlup cult." You are wrong because Machlup was right, not because "he said so." Read the %^$%#$@% paper, mi ceffo.
-
" You are simply wrong,. look in a dictionary. " You are simply wrong. Read Fritz Machlup's paper on the misuse of the word 'methodology'. Just because some dictionary has endorsed a misuse does not now make it a proper use.
-
"D oes anyone know what he is talking about Mises changing Human Action in response to Rothbard? Is that just a complete lie?" Cult members are always so nasty when anyone challenges their cult dogma. IF I turned out to be wrong about this, it couldn't be that I am mistaken -- no, I must be LYING! Because, after all, I am an EVIL STATIST
-
"What can never be done is to reduce what has had to be learned in order to excel at such a type of [concrete] activity to the application of rules. There will of course at any particular stage in the historical development of such a form of activity be a stock of maxims which are used to characterize what is taken at that stage to be the best
-
" Methodology is a system of methods and principles for doing something..." No, methodology is the study of such systems of methods. " you have lowered the force of your claims to so much whining." I remember how in Middle School I used to act like this. In any case, I just popped in to post a nice quote -- next post.
-
Solid_choke, you are the exception that tests the rule!
-
" Mises never claimed that values do not point at something outside the subject." And therefore he was mistaken to claim they are purely subjective. I've pointed out that Mises was a much better social theorist than "methodologist" before, and it is true here too -- his condemnation of socialism clearly shows that he understood
-
" are there right answers that could be known but no rigourous methodology that is known which can make them known ?" I think you mean "method" not "methodology." But in any case, of course there is no "rigorous" method that makes practical truths known, if by that you mean makes them capable of deductive certainty
-
Well, Grayson, suggest something that is "purely subjective" -- values certainly are not, since a value always points at something outside the subject.