Economics Questions

Re: Where are the deductive proofs?

ladyattis — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:26:38 GMT

Jon,

You should read his book on the welfare state's rise. It's quite a good read both from a historical and analytical perspective.

Re: Where are the deductive proofs?

abskebabs — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:16:08 GMT

Daniel:

What book would you recommend to learn formal logic?

I just started reading Morris Cohen's "An Introduction to Logic", and have found it quite good so far.

Re: Where are the deductive proofs?

Jon Irenicus — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:45:21 GMT

He's an Objectivist but in a qualified sense, namely because he departs from the Peikovian orthodoxy on whether Objectivism is a closed system (he maintains it isn't and is amenable to development.) He's a very good philosopher, far better than Peikoff IMO. If you do decide to sign up on a logic course, just ask beforehand whether the book is suitable for use with it; some courses use different systems/symbology, and thus it may not be useful in those cases (in which case I'd retain it for private study.)

Re: Where are the deductive proofs?

DanielMuff — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:39:40 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

I'd recommend signing up for a college-level course in it. It's not something you can teach yourself easily. David Kelley's The Art of Reasoning is good though.

That's funny. I saw a John Stossel documentary last night with David Kelley in it. He's an objectivist (not that there's anything wrong that).

Re: Where are the deductive proofs?

Jon Irenicus — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:36:33 GMT

I mentioned him because he's one of the few people I know of interested in doing it, regardless of his epistemological predilections.

Re: Where are the deductive proofs?

scineram — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:34:19 GMT

It is interesting you brought up van den Hauwe doing this formalization. I said the same thing he argued in this discussion. See especially the latter pages.

Re: Where are the deductive proofs?

Jon Irenicus — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:32:03 GMT

I'd recommend signing up for a college-level course in it. It's not something you can teach yourself easily. David Kelley's The Art of Reasoning is good though.

Re: Where are the deductive proofs?

DanielMuff — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:30:20 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

No, it really is a lot of work and the benefit from it is dubious (does little to nothing to advance the science to laymen, and it distracts from issues like monetary economics). (Logical) formalisation is by no means simple and is highly prone to the ambiguities that occasion in natural language. Unless you're highly trained in formal logic, translating a text like HA is a huge task. I think Ludwig van den Hauwe is interested in doing it though (and I know of a couple of Austrians who are as well, I can ask them for contact details if you wish to get in touch.) Austrians are very clear on their arguments and what supports them (Hoppe summarises some of the key ones in his works, look up Geoffrey Plauche's paper on Aristotelianism and apriorism for references); the issue is more how to formalise them, which requires training and experience in formal logic, i.e. how to translate them into formal language, which is wherein the difficulty usually lies. Very few major Austrians are trained in formal logic to my knowledge (their training is usually in Economics, which includes no such component), and the skill required to translate a book like HA is not something you can acquire just by doing it as a hobby; even Philosophy graduates only get a synoptic understanding of it unless they choose to specialise.

What book would you recommend to learn formal logic?

Re: Where are the deductive proofs?

Jon Irenicus — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:29:20 GMT

Yet it is so... but good luck parsing its first principles into formal logic without the requisite knowledge or time/effort.

Re: Where are the deductive proofs?

scineram — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:23:44 GMT

Jon Irenicus:
Austrian econ is axiomatic-deductive.

The point is that it is not so. The formal epxression he wants therefore was not done because it cannot be done.

Re: Where are the deductive proofs?

Jon Irenicus — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:11:02 GMT

No, it really is a lot of work and the benefit from it is dubious (does little to nothing to advance the science to laymen, and it distracts from issues like monetary economics). (Logical) formalisation is by no means simple and is highly prone to the ambiguities that occasion in natural language. Unless you're highly trained in formal logic, translating a text like HA is a huge task. I think Ludwig van den Hauwe is interested in doing it though (and I know of a couple of Austrians who are as well, I can ask them for contact details if you wish to get in touch.) Austrians are very clear on their arguments and what supports them (Hoppe summarises some of the key ones in his works, look up Geoffrey Plauche's paper on Aristotelianism and apriorism for references); the issue is more how to formalise them, which requires training and experience in formal logic, i.e. how to translate them into formal language, which is wherein the difficulty usually lies. Very few major Austrians are trained in formal logic to my knowledge (their training is usually in Economics, which includes no such component), and the skill required to translate a book like HA is not something you can acquire just by doing it as a hobby; even Philosophy graduates only get a synoptic understanding of it unless they choose to specialise.

Re: Where are the deductive proofs?

Rooster — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:00:53 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

Please use the search function. This has been asked a dozen times or so. Deductive reasoning is a form of logical reasoning, that's all. What you're asking is for formalisation. Why hasn't this been done? My guess it's a lot of work. So, if you or anyone else wishes to see this happen, try and make it so. Austrian econ is axiomatic-deductive.

OK, most of these threads should disappear if you use the search function I guess.

I would think that, 50 years or so after the major texts were written, to say it's a lot of work is hardly satisfactory. It must be quite unclear what the actual propositions are, and what are the deductive arguments that support them.

Re: Where are the deductive proofs?

krazy kaju — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:36:25 GMT

Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State deductively proves much of Austrian theory in informal language.

Re: Where are the deductive proofs?

Jon Irenicus — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:35:16 GMT

Please use the search function. This has been asked a dozen times or so. Deductive reasoning is a form of logical reasoning, that's all. What you're asking is for formalisation. Why hasn't this been done? My guess it's a lot of work. So, if you or anyone else wishes to see this happen, try and make it so. Austrian econ is axiomatic-deductive.

Anyway, the idea of a mathematical deduction, as opposed to any other sort of deduction, is that it is independent of however one might intuit its premises; this is precisely what makes it characteristically mathematical. On the other hand, the arguments in praxeology up to now rely almost exclusively on one's intuition of its notions.

The same is true of logical deduction, of which mathematical deduction is arguably a subset (though this has been disputed.) The problem with calling Austrian econ deductive is that it omits most of what is going on and differentiates it from sciences using the hypothetico-deductive methodology. Deduction is purely inference from premises to a conclusion (Austrian econ differs wrt to the epistemological character of its postulates to "positive" economics; both are "deductive" though.)

Re: Where are the deductive proofs?

Sage — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:09:59 GMT

Solomon:
On the other hand, the arguments in praxeology up to now rely almost exclusively on one's intuition of its notions.

Can you list the propositions that require intuition? All I can think of are the "subsidiary axioms": labor is a disutility, there exists a variety of human and natural resources, a monetary economy has indirect exchange, and firms aim at maximizing monetary profits.

It seems to me the OP is correct. Praxeology is a body of chains of reasoning deduced from axioms, and hence can be expressed formally, i.e. numbering the statements and putting them in a logical order (premises before conclusion). I suppose the chains of reasoning could also be expressed in symbolic logic, but I'm not sure it would be useful. As Rothbard points out, this would violate Occam's Razor.

Lilburne:
For example, with a numbered chain of deductions, we could respond to critics who respect that sort of thing, with, "Okay so you don't like our conclusions, but exactly which number in this chain of deductions do you dispute?" That would have the effect of focusing the debate quickly upon the true bone of contention, and quite possibly efficiently delivering our opponents a "blank out" moment, when they realize they can't reasonably dispute any of our inferences.

Exactly. Debating would be much more efficient if arguments were presented in standard form.