Economics Questions

Re: A question on Hoppe's explanation of the Austrian method

Malachi — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 01:24:12 GMT

Smiling Dave has it. I tend to agree with the modern interpretation, and consider arithmetic operations to be analytic a priori. Not that my opinion on this matter is worth much to anyone, ha

Re: A question on Hoppe's explanation of the Austrian method

Smiling Dave — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 00:17:40 GMT

Sure you can use formal logic.

But it sounds like Hoppe and your Wikipedia quote moved the goalposts, redefining analytic to encompass what used to be synthetic.

See wikipedia on Kant.

Re: A question on Hoppe's explanation of the Austrian method

Cortes — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 23:52:01 GMT

@Robin Hood, Malachi: Wasn't Kant wrong on 5+7=12 being a synthetic a priori proposition? Isn't it formal? Wikipedia is telling me this is so:

"Thanks to Frege's logical semantics, particularly his concept of analyticity, arithmetic truths like "7+5=12" are no longer synthetic a priori but analytical a priori truths in Carnap's extended sense of "analytic". Hence logical empiricists are not subject to Kant's criticism of Hume for throwing out mathematics along with metaphysics"^[3]

Are you saying you cannot use formal logic to deduce 5+7=12?

Re: A question on Hoppe's explanation of the Austrian method

Esuric — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:01:44 GMT

First, I don't get why the classification as 'analytic & synthetic' on the one hand, and 'a priori and posteriori' on the other hand. I find analytic knowledge to be synonymous with a priori knowledge, and synthetic knowledge to be synonymous with posteriori knowledge. (You can see it in how Hoppe defines the terms--or may be Hoppe is just adopting the conventional distinction).

This isn't "Hoppe's" explanation; it's basic epistemology. These categorizations have been around forever. The difference between a synthetic and an analytic proposition is that you can imagine the former not being true (individuals intentionally not acting in their self-interests), while the latter is true by definition (you cannot imagine, for example, existing in a timeless/spaceless dimension).

Your second question, though still poorly constructed, is the interesting one. Are synthetic a priori statements really a priori at all, or are they based on experience?

Re: A question on Hoppe's explanation of the Austrian method

Prashanth Perumal — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:56:28 GMT

Hey guys, thanks for your replies. I found the answer to my question here, and the same answer in a much simpler form here.

Posting the links just in case someone gets the same question in the future. Thanks again!

Re: A question on Hoppe's explanation of the Austrian method

RobinHood — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:41:47 GMT

Hoppe and wikipedia disagree, it seems.

According to wikipedia, either on Kant or on Critique of pure reason, the breakdown is like this:

Analytic: Info a good dictionary will tell you. An example: A bachelor is an unmarried man.

Synthetic: Anything more than the dictionary will tell you.

A posteriori: Something you can only learn from the outside world around you. Example: My dog has fleas.

Certainly, if a fact is a posteriori, it is synthetic. No dictionary will tell you that your dog has fleas. But are there any synthetic [=not in the dictionary] facts that we do not learn from the world of experience?

Kant said yes. He said that 5 plus 7 equals 12 is not in the dictionary for 5, or for 7, [or for twelve , or for plus, or for equals], so it's synthetic. You do not have to go out and count fleas on your dog to find this out, but can use your powers of logical thinking to deduce this, so it's a priori.

Since Kant, it seems, gave this example of 5 plus 7 equals twelve, then it looks like Hoppe missed the boat when he said anything deducible by logic is analytic.

Re: A question on Hoppe's explanation of the Austrian method

Malachi — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:54:28 GMT

Analytic-requires only formal logic

synthetic-requires formal logic combined with something else

a priori-does not require observation

a posteriori-requires observation

the "something else" that isnt an "observation" is the undeniable proposition that humans act with purpose. Its not a posteriori because you can figure this out in your head from the living room, like all a priori knowledge, but it does combine formal logic and the human experience. You only know this proposition is undeniable because you are human.

A question on Hoppe's explanation of the Austrian method

Prashanth Perumal — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:57:06 GMT

Hoppe says (Economic Science and the Austrian Method, pp 17): "Propositions are analytic whenever the means of formal logic are sufficient in order to find out whether they are true or not; otherwise propositions are synthetic ones. And propositions are a posteriori whenever observations are necessary in order to establish their truth or at least confirm them. If observations are not necessary then propositions are a priori.

The characteristic mark of Kantian philosophy is the claim that true a priori synthetic propositions exist-and it is because Mises subscribes to this claim that he can be called a Kantian. Synthetic a priori propositions are those whose truth-value can be definitely established, even though in order to do so the means of formal logic are not sufficient (while, of course, necessary) and observations are unnecessary."

First, I don't get why the classification as 'analytic & synthetic' on the one hand, and 'a priori and posteriori' on the other hand. I find analytic knowledge to be synonymous with a priori knowledge, and synthetic knowledge to be synonymous with posteriori knowledge. (You can see it in how Hoppe defines the terms--or may be Hoppe is just adopting the conventional distinction).

Secondly, and more importantly, I don't get how there could be anything called "synthetic a priori propositions'. Aren't the terms synthetic (knowledge gained through observation) and a priori (knowledge gained through logic) contradictory?