tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post9063463202165059055..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: My Posts Refuting Misesian Apriorism and PraxeologyLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-27677702427188648932013-11-20T20:02:11.694-08:002013-11-20T20:02:11.694-08:00Synthetic a priori knowledge is not needed in any ...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.<br /><br />In 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.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-28468452581762245812013-11-20T19:26:18.828-08:002013-11-20T19:26:18.828-08:00"My posts below explain why Misesian aprioris..."My posts below explain why Misesian apriorist praxeology is untenable and requires non-existent synthetic a priori knowledge. "<br /><br />Doesn't leftism require that as well? Like, don't you have to assume that you're measuring poverty or GDP or "social welfare" correctly?asdfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03025714685907364195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-26820444020437255262013-10-13T09:03:30.683-07:002013-10-13T09:03:30.683-07:00" It is plainly obvious that with millions of...<i>" It is plainly obvious that with millions of variable factors, causation cannot be proved and certainly shouldn't be assumed from empirical, historical "evidence", "</i><br /><br />"Millions of factors" is an absurd exaggeration, to say the least.<br /><br />If a company increased its output, you can ascertain why they did so -- the causal factors -- by asking the managers.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The propositions describing the cause and effect relationship would be "synthetic <i>a posteriori</i>", and their truth extremely probable. <br /><br />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.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-22290021006348176322013-10-13T08:34:38.529-07:002013-10-13T08:34:38.529-07:00I see now the folly you'll contend. I cited M...I 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.P Szarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09298180391605451618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-28145862440159988792013-10-13T08:31:35.545-07:002013-10-13T08:31:35.545-07:00I don't care what Mises says on this. It is p...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? P Szarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09298180391605451618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-87572074244797828792013-10-12T23:47:08.292-07:002013-10-12T23:47:08.292-07:00" why don't you focus on the point Mises ...<i>" 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?"</i><br /><br />Empirical study has "no possible way to conclude a particular cause creates a particular effect"?<br /><br />Where does Mises say this? It is quite plainly a ridiculous idea.<br /><br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-50956943088765816132013-10-12T14:10:26.379-07:002013-10-12T14:10:26.379-07:00Your posts run under the assumption youve won. Bu...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.P Szarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09298180391605451618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-65003843833353062762013-10-11T18:37:06.466-07:002013-10-11T18:37:06.466-07:00'It is like beating a dead horse.'
Yes. ...'It is like beating a dead horse.'<br /><br />Yes. 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.Argosy Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-26165985658049831982013-10-11T08:42:28.945-07:002013-10-11T08:42:28.945-07:00It is like beating a dead horse. You showed in the...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?PeterPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02032621777697914182noreply@blogger.com