Economics Questions

Re: Does determinism debunk praxeology?

Smiling Dave — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:30:55 GMT

...(on logical as well as evidencial grounds)...

So what are the flaws in logic and what is the evidence?

Re: Does determinism debunk praxeology?

zefreak — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:09:21 GMT

Hey there, sorry it took me so long to get back to you but I've been inactive for so long I always forget to check the forum.

The reason I asked is because it seemed like you possibly rejected free-will because of its implications for an omnipotent God. While I reject free will as a confused concept (on logical as well as evidencial grounds), I think God's omnipotence can be questioned using old testament scripture that is unrelated to free will.

I'm an athiest so I have no horse in this race, but if your reasoning for rejecting free will is as I thought, I think that I could persuade you that the God of the bible can't be omnipotent through other means if you are so inclined.

Re: Does determinism debunk praxeology?

The Texas Trigger — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 21:48:58 GMT

zefreak:
Are you a biblical literalist by any chance?

Zefreak, there are many absurdities proclaimed in the world but few reach the absurdity of a literal interpretation of the Bible. So no, I am not a literalist. I think any scholarship done on the context of books like Genesis and Revelation will prove them to be works of poetry heavy in metaphor. Even without the scholarship, its pretty clear anyway.

For instance, if you do even the bare minimum of theological and historical research, the "world-wide" flood of noah and the arc is obviously regional. The term world-wide flood merely meant that everyone on the Earth besides Noah and his family would perish in that flood. By no means should we assume that the entire Earth was in fact flooded with water. The population at that time was so negligent and local that any flood we hear of on the daily news would likely dwarf it. Again, atheists and deists are free to reject even my conception of what the flood was, but it is important to understand (whether you believe in it or not) what the authors meant when they wrote what they wrote.

The kind of people who believe in the world-wide flood also believe there will be one man called the anti-christ who will rule the world, and there will be a definite and literal tribulation. This belief was largely the result of a man named John Darby falling off of his horse. The Revelation was all a dream...come on, no wonder the world thinks we are nut jobs.

I do have to ask, what prompted the question of whether or not I am a biblical literalist?

Re: Does determinism debunk praxeology?

Vitor — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:56:56 GMT

Determinism could debunk any human science. But it is impractical as hell.

Re: Does determinism debunk praxeology?

zefreak — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:11:17 GMT

Epic bump.

The Texas Trigger, I assume your reason for rejecting free will is to attempt to reconcile omnipotence with our subjective impression of choice. Are you a biblical literalist by any chance?

Re: Does determinism debunk praxeology?

The Texas Trigger — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:18:43 GMT

nandnor:

That makes it feel like praxeology is just mental masturbation like any other religious or philosophical treatise, as far as explaining the objective world is concerned.

I may be confusing this with theological determinsim, however, as a Christian who does not believe in free will, this is a topic of some interest to me. In another thread that I started on the praxeology of animals, one poster put it this way: wether or not animals are capable of action in the Misesian sense is irrelevant. the better question to ask would be: is it useful to analyze animals in a praxeological sense or an instinctual sense?

I think this same mentality could be applied to the OP's question. While I do not believe God granted men free will in the theological or supernatural sense, it would not be useful for me to analyze the world under a framework of complete determinism, be it in the physical or theological sense. I find that looking at the world through the lens of praxeology tends to yield the best results.

I can understand why this might be confusing for a lot of people, especially atheists or even deists. Put shortly, I can view the entire of everything in two realities. On the one hand, there is the upper, over-arching reality which the knowledge of lies in the possession of God. He wills everything, and because he knows everything, then I cannot actually have free will. For if he knows I will do one thing, and I do the opposite of that thing, then this God does not know everything. On the other hand, there is the reality I live and function under. Here I perceive the sensation of choice. I make choices that I believe are suitable to achieve my ends, however from the theological level, these choices were al predetermined.

Atheists are free to reject this idea, of course, and they probably will. But this does not mean that there cannot be a secular version that still holds true: biological or physical determinism such as that favored by Freud.

If you want my 21 page long answer to this question, PM me.

P.S. why does the spell check on Mises own forum still tell me that praxeology is not a word? Ironic in a way...

Re: Does determinism debunk praxeology?

vive la insurrection — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 06:38:42 GMT

Logic is inherently deterministic. "Choice" is an empty set word attached to a proposition, nothing special. Determinism, in almost any sense, certainly doesn't conflict with Menger and Bohm-Bawherk, who were determinists. And I would say it would be very difficult to conflict with anything Mises had to say.

What's probably getting confused with questions like this is the nature of subjectivism - which in our case is not nihilism or skepticism

Re: Does determinism debunk praxeology?

RedScourge — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 06:33:11 GMT

"...and the philosophers laughed and one of them said 'So you are determined to believe in determinism.' "

The simple response he could have given to win it back is "I am not free to do otherwise".

Re: Does determinism debunk praxeology?

I. Ryan — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:52:48 GMT

ladyattis:

It's hard to grasp at first, but it's easier when you see it. If A can only cause B, then B can only be caused by A.

Or in symbolic logic: A -> B, B -> A, A <-> B.

If that were to follow, no differentiation between "A -> B" and "A <-> B" would be necessary.

Re: Does determinism debunk praxeology?

Joel — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:32:20 GMT

ladyattis:

It's hard to grasp at first, but it's easier when you see it. If A can only cause B, then B can only be caused by A.

That does not follow.

Even if A can cause nothing but B, it may still be the case that other things can cause B besides A.

That is, A may consist of one way to skin a cat. But there are other ways.

'A' may necessarily result in a skinned cat, but a skinned cat does not imply that method A was used.

Re: Does determinism debunk praxeology?

ladyattis — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:11:43 GMT

Merlin:
Pardon me if I’m wrong, but I truly believe that “determinism” is just about single-way causation, no two-way causation.

It's hard to grasp at first, but it's easier when you see it. If A can only cause B, then B can only be caused by A.

Or in symbolic logic: A -> B, B -> A, A <-> B.

Re: Does determinism debunk praxeology?

Joel — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:18:33 GMT

Solid_Choke:

Of course we all know it is a law of nature that Dr. Pepper is the greatest soda of all time.

I know you are making a joke, but this happens to be the type of thing that we can objectively reason about. We can refute such a proposition by pointing out that the existence of Dr. Pepper (let alone having a Dr. Pepper) is not something inherent to the nature of man, and therefore is no part of natural law. Indeed many men lived prior to the existence of Dr. Pepper. By the same sort of reasoning we can conclude objectively that there is no such thing as a natural right to a polio vaccination.

Re: Does determinism debunk praxeology?

yuberries — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:48:58 GMT

I think that even if determinism could be so scientifically developed as to mechanically map out every human behavior, it wouldn't negate praxeology and perhaps would even relate back to it. Praxeology, leaving consciousness aside, does assert a certain mechanical quality to men in the sense that it always chooses that which he finds best for himself. I think it could be possible to prove that the human mind does work that exact way, so in a sense, praxeology would be mechanically correct even when broken down to chemical reactions and neuron interactions in the brain.

More specifically, I think I'm right to say that, mechanically speaking, the mind works by associating correlative data from the senses. I don't know much after that, but I assume it would be extremely compatible with praxeology if each set of data were strongly or weakly associated with a set of action... the action that is performed is that which has the strongest correlation with the data being inputted. Which means, by experience, we collect and assemble data-action pairs to some sort of criteria, which could be instinctive and part of the brain structure or certain areas... but I'm already babbling too much for having thought and studied about it so little.

Anyway, determinism doesn't disprove praxeology at all, for sure. And for all I know, praxeology could very well be merely applied neuropsychology :)

Re: Does determinism debunk praxeology?

AJ — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:54:14 GMT

Solid_Choke:

AJ:

Solid_Choke:

zefreak:

Ethics has a lot more going against it than just its incompatibility with determinism (if it is indeed incompatible). Not only are normative propositions incapable of being derived from factual statements and thus cannot be verified (if the axioms are brought into doubt), but they aren't even falsifiable.

"Statements should be falsifiable."

Is the above statement falsifiable?

Not if "should" is taken in the normative sense.

That was my point. What justification do you have for telling people their theories should be falsifiable, if your theory that "theories should be falsifiable" is not falsifiable?

If "should" is taken in the consequential sense, i.e., "Statements should be falsifiable if you want them to serve X purpose." is falsifiable.

Re: Does determinism debunk praxeology?

zefreak — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:32:29 GMT

Solid_Choke:

zefreak:

Occam's Razor is a normative heuristic, not a logical principle. Everyone adopts it because it makes sense intuitively and people recognize that they live by the principle every day of their lives in normal decision making. As a purely normative principle, expressing what is 'within one's rights to believe', it is either accepted or not. If accepted, certain results follow. If not, critiques hinging on Occam's Razor fall flat. The vast majority of intellectually honest people on this earth understand that by recognizing the benefits of applying the principle in their lives they are implicitly accepting it as valuable, and won't reject it just to 'win an argument'.

This is basically the position I hold, but there are some pretty sophisticated arguments that attempt to justify it on information theory, physics, and probability grounds, but I'm in over my head in terms of evaluating the specific claims asserted in the arguments. Just throwing that out there.

I understand how probability (not sure about physics or information theory) might explicate the principle and make it more persuasive, but I don't see how either of those fields could possibly offer a logical, epistemic justification. I am interested in reading more on the subject, however. I find Occam's Razor fascinating, and central to my philosophy.