tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post3940230013961943604..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Mises Fails Philosophy of Mathematics 101Lord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-31253973251879805582019-12-19T04:35:35.790-08:002019-12-19T04:35:35.790-08:00Lord Keynes,
first of all, I totally agree in you...Lord Keynes, <br />first of all, I totally agree in your opinion on praxeology.<br />But when I read this:<br />1. „That is to say, modern apriorist Rationalists can defend the necessary, a priori truth of Euclidean geometry,but only as a pure mathematical theory that is vacuous, non-informative and tautologous.“<br />2. „It tells us no necessary truth about reality.“<br />While I would agree on 2., assuming that You meant physical reality.<br /><br />But, I think You underrate the knowledge which can come out of (pure) mathematics.<br />Is it really your opinion that mathmaticians create nothing more than „vacuous, non-informative and tautologous“ theories? I don‘t think that any mathematician would agree here.<br />At least the word „tautological“ is far from beeing correct in my opinion.<br />There is a big difference between the conclusion that a batchlor is unmarried and that, in euclidian space, the pythagorean theorem holds.<br /><br />best regards SiegfriedSiegfriedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11345911064325682297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-55829509740924943352017-10-11T04:55:36.469-07:002017-10-11T04:55:36.469-07:00"The whole controversy is, however, meaningle..."The whole controversy is, however, meaningless when applied to praxeology. It refers essentially to geometry. Its present state, especially its treatment by logical positivism, has been deeply influenced by the shock that Western philosophy received from the discovery of non-Euclidian geometries. Before Bolyai and Lobachevsky, geometry was, in the eyes of the philosophers, the paragon of perfect science; it was assumed that it provided unshakable certainty forever and for everybody. To proceed also in other branches of knowledge more geometrico was the great ideal of truth-seekers. All traditional epistemological concepts began to totter when the attempts to construct non-Euclidian geometries succeeded.<br /><br /> Yet praxeology is not geometry. It is the worst of all superstitions to assume that the epistemological characteristics of one branch of knowledge must necessarily be applicable to any other branch. In dealing with the epistemology of the sciences of human action, one must not take one’s cue from geometry, mechanics, or any other science.<br /><br /> The assumptions of Euclid were once considered as self-evidently true. Present-day epistemology looks upon them as freely chosen postulates, the starting point of a hypothetical chain of reasoning. Whatever this may mean, it has no reference at all to the problems of praxeology.<br /><br /> The starting point of praxeology is a self-evident truth, the cognition of action, that is, the cognition of the fact that there is such a thing as consciously aiming at ends. There is no use cavilling about these words by referring to philosophical problems that have no bearing upon our problem. The truth of this cognition is as self-evident and as indispensable for the human mind as is the distinction between A and non-A.”<br /> — Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, p.5<br /><br />Try again.Conzahttp://conza.tumblr.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-16214516659645029872013-09-10T18:53:36.551-07:002013-09-10T18:53:36.551-07:00(1/2) Conceding that point, that does not mean one...(1/2) Conceding that point, that does not mean one thing is totally wrong. Just because Non Euclidian Geometry is a better hand at realizing the world does not mean that invalidates something separate. Mises is stating that just because something is analytical or apriori does not mean it cannot give a good model for how the world COULD work. <br /><br />(3) Thats your assumption, you argued your case. Praxeology's method of trying to figure out what is human actions and how human prioritize is of a different animal than metrics. Maybe Empirical evidence in this case is not compatible or needed to validate a series of claims. Then again, maybe you should email some Mises Institute Faculty. <br /><br />On an unrelated note, i don't know why you call them cultists. AERC is open to anybody that applies and does not try to silence or limit consensus. Maybe, if you have the time, going to AERC (rather than Mises Circle, you won't like it) would be a great way to challenge and to help refine the Austrian School Economists and their theories. You are an excellent critic, i can;t see why that can't happen.<br /><br />The Fire Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15374464345849156299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-2918455127471252832013-09-01T00:02:01.733-07:002013-09-01T00:02:01.733-07:00Your ramblings suggest you are ignorant of the iss...Your ramblings suggest you are ignorant of the issues at hand.<br /><br />(1) Synthetic a priori knowledge does not exist. <br /><br />(2) If praxeology is based on analytic a priori axioms, it is vacuous, non-informative tautologies, and says nothing necessarily of the real world.<br /><br />(3) If its axioms are synthetic a posteriori, it is -- in contrast to Mises and all other Austrian apriorist cultists -- to be verified or falsified by empirical evidence.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-79115663401400804442013-08-31T20:36:15.882-07:002013-08-31T20:36:15.882-07:00How much do I value this blog post? Can you measur...How much do I value this blog post? Can you measure it empirically? Further, can I do the same? That's the problem that you don't see.<br /><br />The jump from geometry to physics was cute, but here I thought the subject might've been economics. I was left wanting. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-45215761943351597292013-08-30T09:54:52.920-07:002013-08-30T09:54:52.920-07:00(1) You are -- by citing Rothbard -- just confirmi...(1) You are -- by citing Rothbard -- just confirming what I said:<br /><br /><i>"My view is that the fundamental axiom and subsidiary axioms are derived from the experience of reality and are therefore in the broadest sense empirical"</i><br /><br />So Rothbard admits that the axioms are synthetic a posteriori.<br /><br />(2) But you are incapable of seeing the consequence of (1): without synthetic a priori, praxeology, in so far as it says <i>anything informative about the real world</i>, can only have synthetic a posteriori derived theorems and theories, which can and must be tested against empirical evidence and experience.<br /><br />(3) actually the human action axiom is not immediately and obviously true as I have already demonstrated here:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-is-epistemological-status-of.htmlLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-91591438563332940372013-08-30T09:20:51.884-07:002013-08-30T09:20:51.884-07:00Rothbard differed with Mises’ description of the a...Rothbard differed with Mises’ description of the axioms of praxeology as “a priori” because Mises was an adherent of Kantian epistemology and Rothbard was not:<br /><br /><i>Turning from the deduction process to the axioms themselves, what is their epistemological status? Here the problems are obscured by a difference of opinion within the praxeological camp, particularly on the nature of the fundamental axiom of action. Ludwig von Mises, as an adherent of Kantian epistemology, asserted that the concept of action is a priori to all experience, because it is, like the law of cause and effect, part of "the essential and necessary character of the logical structure of the human mind." Without delving too deeply into the murky waters of epistemology, I would deny, as an Aristotelian and neo-Thomist, any such alleged "laws of logical structure" that the human mind necessarily imposes on the chaotic structure of reality. Instead, I would call all such laws "laws of reality," which the mind apprehends from investigating and collating the facts of the real world. My view is that the fundamental axiom and subsidiary axioms are derived from the experience of reality and are therefore in the broadest sense empirical. I would agree with the Aristotelian realist view that its doctrine is radically empirical, far more so than the post-Humean empiricism which is dominant in modern philosophy. ****<br /><br />It should be noted that for Mises it is only the fundamental axiom of action that is a priori; he conceded that the subsidiary axioms of the diversity of mankind and nature, and of leisure as a consumers' good, are broadly empirical.<br /><br />Modern post-Kantian philosophy has had a great deal of trouble encompassing self-evident propositions, which are marked precisely by their strong and evident truth rather than by being testable hypotheses, that are, in the current fashion, considered to be "falsifiable." </i><br /><br />http://mises.org/rothbard/praxeology.pdf<br /><br />Hasn’t LK previously stated that the action axiom is not only true, but it is trivial and that everyone knows that it is true and trivial? Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-7457108294100565502013-08-30T07:23:55.332-07:002013-08-30T07:23:55.332-07:00Dr. Michael Emmett Brady has read and reviewed tha...Dr. Michael Emmett Brady has read and reviewed that excellent classic by the late Morris Kline over here.<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/review/RYU59NS0RGKO8/Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-33503881024397620312013-08-30T05:58:58.870-07:002013-08-30T05:58:58.870-07:00Morris Kline's Mathematics: The Loss of Certai...Morris Kline's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Loss-Certainty-Galaxy-Books/dp/0195030850" rel="nofollow">Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty</a> is a superb historical overview of this very subject. That's the book that solidified for me that Kant was wrong, mathematics a fundamentally empirical science, etc.<br /><br />Also, someone who refers to "geometry in general" and then only makes use of Euclidean geometry should immediately raise red flags; we've recognized, in a rigorous way, that there exist not one but many geometries, each a valid logical model of reality in its own right, since the 19th century.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com