tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post2737279343445424475..comments2023-03-03T04:02:23.053-08:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: John Quiggin on Apriorism in Austrian EconomicsLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-20594455224186766372014-07-30T02:23:56.976-07:002014-07-30T02:23:56.976-07:00Oh, so your poorly written comment is supposed to ...Oh, so your poorly written comment is supposed to mean that <br /><br />(1) you are saying that the human action axiom and all other axioms of praxeology are known a posteriori? <br /><br />(2) But when used as a premises in deductive arguments, the deductive argument per se, if valid and sound, is known as true a priori?<br /><br />Correct, but doesn't vindicate the synthetic a priori epistemology of Mises.<br /><br />In any case whenever a premise is synthetic a posteriori, you need empirical evidence and inductive argument to prove that this premise per se it is correct, so Mises is not freed from empiricism at all.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-18214468823918864322014-07-30T02:17:28.099-07:002014-07-30T02:17:28.099-07:00(1) "Its applicable to physical objects as de...(1) <i>"Its applicable to physical objects as descriptions of these objects. "</i><br /><br />That is what I meant, you fool: non-Euclidean geometry is the correct/right theory/model of spacetime in the universe.<br /><br />(2) It appears that you are using a narrow definition of "prove" in the sense of "prove" with apodictic certainty/truth in a shoddy fallacy of equivocation.<br /><br />When I say "prove" I mean **inductively prove with a degree of probability**: just as we can inductively prove that the heliocentric model is the right theory of how our solar system is actually structured with a high degree of probability.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-58374270717174168882014-07-30T00:00:52.682-07:002014-07-30T00:00:52.682-07:00"Are you aware how stupid and ignorant this s..."Are you aware how stupid and ignorant this statement is?"<br /><br />Once its causes are inductively grasped, then applying them is analytic a priori. The inductions themselves are not a priori, except for whatever a priori nature is in induction itself. <br /><br />For example, any applications of these inductive concepts to explain economic historic events are a priori, because you are analyzing these events with PRIOR concepts. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-66866747969427456782014-07-29T23:48:39.071-07:002014-07-29T23:48:39.071-07:00"There is evidence that inductively proves th..."There is evidence that inductively proves that non-Euclidean geometry is the correct theory of spacetime in the universe."<br /><br />This statement has no meaning. No geometry has physical existence, it only has conceptual existence. Its applicable to physical objects as descriptions of these objects. You can't "prove" geometry anymore than you can "prove" a triangle's angles add up to 180 degrees by measuring them. They are only proven by being derived from their axioms.<br /><br />Also, I only meant to say that if a person is not explicit as to their meaning, then it can be construed that the human mind perceives the physical world this way. I did not mean to say that every person holds this opinion. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-8475768977587820502014-07-29T23:37:09.010-07:002014-07-29T23:37:09.010-07:00"Mises never used the term "axiom" ...<i>"Mises never used the term "axiom" because the basis of praxeology is formed of statements about the nature of how humans perform actions, which is inductive.<br /><br />Everything derived from this is apriori,"</i><br /><br />So you think that the basis of praxeology is inductive, but at the same time a priori?<br /><br />Are you aware how stupid and ignorant this statement is?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-77326647975197831052014-07-29T23:29:47.839-07:002014-07-29T23:29:47.839-07:00"So when people say the universe is Euclidean...<i>"So when people say the universe is Euclidean, it is the same as saying the mental capacity of the human mind only perceives Euclidean space.</i><br /><br />This is NOT what many rationalist apriorists have said down through the ages: many said it was necessarily and universally true of real space.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-92160161922380084362014-07-29T23:27:34.613-07:002014-07-29T23:27:34.613-07:00"In fact, no evidence can prove or disprove w...<i>"In fact, no evidence can prove or disprove whether Euclidean geometry applies to the real world or not."</i><br /><br />Of course there is evidence that can. <br /><br />There is evidence that inductively proves that non-Euclidean geometry is the correct theory of spacetime in the universe.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-7696063620563280602014-07-29T12:23:54.529-07:002014-07-29T12:23:54.529-07:00Lars P Syll had post up on Austrian methodology to...Lars P Syll had post up on Austrian methodology today<br />i noticed. http://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/austrian-economics-a-methodological-critique/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-84656776765577743252014-07-29T10:40:45.390-07:002014-07-29T10:40:45.390-07:00I think that Mises probably felt that, in order to...I think that Mises probably felt that, in order to bring about the world he hoped for---in which all humans actually behave as the rational calculators described by economic theory--he had to pretend that that world already existed, and that he was describing it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com