“Mises was Confused about the Analytic–Synthetic Distinction,” September 15, 2013.
“Mises on Kant and Praxeology,” September 15, 2013.
“Hoppe on Euclidean Geometry, Part 2,” September 14, 2013.
“Robert Murphy gets Mises’s Epistemology Wrong,” September 13, 2013.
“Hoppe on Euclidean Geometry,” September 11, 2013.
“Hoppe’s Caricature of Empiricism,” September 10, 2013.
“Mises’s Flawed Deduction and Praxeology,” September 8, 2013.
“Mises versus the Vienna Circle,” September 7, 2013.
“Reply to a ‘Red Herring on Praxeology,’” September 6, 2013.
“Tokumaru on Mises’s Epistemology,” September 3, 2013.
“Mises’s Non Sequitur on synthetic a priori Knowledge,” September 2, 2013.
“Bob Murphy All At Sea on Geometry and Economic Epistemology,” August 31, 2013.
“Mises Fails Philosophy of Mathematics 101,” August 30, 2013.
“Barrotta’s Kantian Critique of Mises’s Epistemology,” July 28, 2013.
“What is the Epistemological Status of Praxeology and the Action Axiom?,” July 27, 2013.
Friday, October 11, 2013
My Posts Refuting Misesian Apriorism and Praxeology
My posts below explain why Misesian apriorist praxeology is untenable and requires non-existent synthetic a priori knowledge. In particular, Misesians have a badly flawed understanding of the philosophy of mathematics and geometry, which they use to defend their apriorism:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is like beating a dead horse. You showed in the previous post that Austrians are interested in their theory only not in the real world. So if we are interested in the real world there is no point of connection, why engage them in debates?
ReplyDelete'It is like beating a dead horse.'
ReplyDeleteYes. But LK is the best there is at what he does, and if people don't see it being beaten, they are liable to think it's sleeping peacefully.
Your posts run under the assumption youve won. But they're also under the assumption deductive logic doesn't contend with the accuracy of empirical study, why don't you focus on the point Mises makes about empirical study having no possible way to conclude a particular cause creates a particular effect? Finish your critique of this before you engage apriorism. And don't settle for almost.
ReplyDelete" why don't you focus on the point Mises makes about empirical study having no possible way to conclude a particular cause creates a particular effect?"
DeleteEmpirical study has "no possible way to conclude a particular cause creates a particular effect"?
Where does Mises say this? It is quite plainly a ridiculous idea.
I don't care what Mises says on this. It is plainly obvious that with millions of variable factors, causation cannot be proved and certainly shouldn't be assumed from empirical, historical "evidence", its the reason the "post hoc" fallacy was ever thought up. you say this is a ridiculous idea. why is it ridiculous to think you should be required to verify your proof in the face of different interpretations of the same information?
DeleteI see now the folly you'll contend. I cited Mises in my earlier post, but now I've moved on to being concerned with the ideas in your mind instead. Please don't waste our time referencing that and ignoring my more recent question.
Delete" It is plainly obvious that with millions of variable factors, causation cannot be proved and certainly shouldn't be assumed from empirical, historical "evidence", "
Delete"Millions of factors" is an absurd exaggeration, to say the least.
If a company increased its output, you can ascertain why they did so -- the causal factors -- by asking the managers.
It is the same with prices. "How and why do you set your prices?" is the question that would give you the empirical evidence to establish a cause and effect relationship.
The propositions describing the cause and effect relationship would be "synthetic a posteriori", and their truth extremely probable.
I suspect your problem is you think one must prove the relation with apodictic truth. That is unnecessary: it can't even be done for the best scientific theories, such as the idea that the earth revolves around the sun.
"My posts below explain why Misesian apriorist praxeology is untenable and requires non-existent synthetic a priori knowledge. "
ReplyDeleteDoesn't leftism require that as well? Like, don't you have to assume that you're measuring poverty or GDP or "social welfare" correctly?
Synthetic a priori knowledge is not needed in any way to estimate GDP. An assertion of a GDP estimate is synthetic a posteriori, and the way to estimate it is thoroughly empirical.
DeleteIn fact, I suspect you do not even understand what synthetic a priori knowledge even is. If you did, you not would write anything so foolish.