Economics Questions

Re: Neuroeconomics

Lagrange multiplier — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:11:01 GMT

yessir, I've already graduated. I plan to apply to law school later this year, though. Law and Economics FTW.

Re: Neuroeconomics

yessir — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:51:54 GMT

Neoclassical, are you enrolled in a degree right now?

Re: Neuroeconomics

Caley McKibbin — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:13:15 GMT

I know what I'm going to be for halloween!

I'm afraid you don't!

Re: Neuroeconomics

Sieben — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:04:39 GMT

I know what I'm going to be for halloween!

Re: Neuroeconomics

Caley McKibbin — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 23:55:53 GMT

If you reject a priorism, aren't you rejecting it a priori?

Yes.

Re: Neuroeconomics

Sieben — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 23:42:40 GMT

If you reject a priorism, aren't you rejecting it a priori?

Re: Neuroeconomics

Caley McKibbin — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 23:04:55 GMT

Having said that, I don't think there is anything wrong with empiricism per se.

Re: Neuroeconomics

I. Ryan — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 23:00:58 GMT

Caley McKibbin:

I don't care about something that is said because it was said.

Basically, I just defined a priorism as it is defined. It doesn't exclude anything.

I have no idea what you are talking about, so I guess that I responded to you out of context.

So nevermind.

Re: Neuroeconomics

Caley McKibbin — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:58:39 GMT

Don't you care about what he said?

I don't care about something that was said because it was said.

Basically, I just defined a priorism as it is defined. It doesn't exclude anything. Another way to put it is "not empiricism".

Re: Neuroeconomics

I. Ryan — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:57:08 GMT

Caley McKibbin:

Since when did what philosophers say matter?[...] I don't care about all philosophers or any philosophers.

Ludwig von Mises of course was a "philosopher". Don't you care about what he said?

Re: Neuroeconomics

Caley McKibbin — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:52:07 GMT

Since when did what philosophers say matter? It is the philosophers that created the vacuous dichotomy to begin with. I don't care about all philosophers or any philosophers.

Re: Neuroeconomics

Jon Irenicus — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:37:26 GMT

I recommend you make an exposition of the arguments in the paper that you think are meritorious. I'm not going to let you slide off the hook by just linking a paper.

And cut the crap. I am not appealing to philosophers to make my point, unlike you. I am pointing out you do know next to nothing about what you're trying to critique and have put minimal thought into these matters, your increased snarkiness notwithstanding.

Re: Neuroeconomics

Lagrange multiplier — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:31:10 GMT

Jon Irenicus:
Don't be so hasty... he does not straightforwardly reject apriorism. I care not for the likes of Quine, Ayer etc. Only whether their arguments hold up. You truly are like Nathyn...

Mine was not an appeal to authority; I was simply strutting out esteemed philosophers that we can infer were not so stupid as to equate all thinking as aprioristic.

If anything, you were the one claiming that my criticisms were "well-known" by your cherished philosophers and thus ineffective.

As for the LNC, I recommend you read this: http://homepage.mac.com/mcolyvan/papers/LNC.pdf. As I've stated elewhere, I do not believe logic is aprioristic and non-revisable.

Re: Neuroeconomics

Jon Irenicus — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:24:30 GMT

Define "knowledge" because little of that made much sense.

Apriorism = belief in truths that are not revisable (not not discoverable, that is a different question) via empirical methods of epistemic justification. These include the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and axioms derived in the manner I posited. There is indeed nothing "special" about it, in that there's nothing unique about how Austrianism employs it. And no, it was not a "dodge"; I am trying to get you to understand that empirical knowledge in turn is wound up with a priori knowledge, hence I wanted you to define it without assuming principles that hold for it (which you didn't, you assumed knowledge the justification of which is in question, e.g. cognitive science.)

Ludwig Wittgenstein, and so many other thinkers that reject apriorism are not rejecting thinking!

Don't be so hasty... he does not straightforwardly reject apriorism. I care not for the likes of Quine, Ayer etc. Only whether their arguments hold up. You truly are like Nathyn...

Re: Neuroeconomics

Lagrange multiplier — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:12:18 GMT

Caley McKibbin:
I have to agree with Irenicus that you don't know what you are talking about. What you call "thinking in general" is "a priorism". As in ==.

I have to agree with Neoclassical that you have no idea what you're talking about. That statement proves it.

You are implying that every philosopher that has ever denied a priori knowledge is denying thinking itself! That's preposterous. W.V.O. Quine, Michael Devitt, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and so many other thinkers that reject apriorism are not rejecting thinking!

At this point, though, you have provided the only positive characterization of what a priori knowledge actually is: all thinking!