tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post4318899617431648389..comments2022-08-11T08:31:26.062-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Hoppe on Euclidean GeometryLKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-57623679213785419702021-02-22T20:16:45.395-08:002021-02-22T20:16:45.395-08:00I'd be anonymous too if I said something execr...I'd be anonymous too if I said something execrable like it's unfortunate that Hoppe, the most brilliant living Austrian economist and libertarian theoriest, is influential. For shame.Stephan Kinsellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07986650653184633661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-28918965147316850352014-04-23T19:39:59.823-07:002014-04-23T19:39:59.823-07:00Mike, this is simply wrong. You are being misled b...Mike, this is simply wrong. You are being misled by history. You can indeed construct nonE examples in E space, and that is normally how people first meet nonE geometry. But the situation is entirely symmetric. You could start with some nonE geometry.<br />Geometry in mathematics is defined formally in terms of a "space" and transformations of it. No particular form has special status.<br />Google Klein program geometry for more. <br /><br />The usefulness of E is empirical. Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-80007082786012546822013-09-13T00:16:31.712-07:002013-09-13T00:16:31.712-07:00"Empirical experiments utilize equipment and ...<i>"Empirical experiments utilize equipment and tools that are produced on the basis of Euclidean geometry. "</i><br /><br />Irrelevant to the question of whether pure Euclidean geometry provides a necessary universally true theory of space known a priori.<br /><br />Your absurd comment is like saying that, since many instruments are built with Newtonian mechanics, Newtonian mechanics must be a universally true theory of the universe known a priori. Well, Newtonian mechanics isn't: it is true of a limited domain, just as Euclidean geometry, And we known this empirically.<br /><br /><i>"What Kant proved is that our minds are a priori Euclidean AND non-Euclidean,"</i><br /><br />Kant "proved" no such thing.LKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-89994867056872764952013-09-12T20:16:03.247-07:002013-09-12T20:16:03.247-07:00"For how do human beings know that non-Euclid..."For how do human beings know that non-Euclidean, curved Riemannian geometry is a better theory of space-time, and that Euclidean geometry is actually only a useful approximation applicable to a certain domain? The answer is: empirically, not a priori."<br /><br />Empirical experiments utilize equipment and tools that are produced on the basis of Euclidean geometry. The dimensions are Euclidean. The equipment and its relation to the researcher is assumed as Euclidean. The relationship of the equipment to the researcher to the data collection is Euclidean.<br /><br />One can't claim that using Euclidean geometry falsifies Euclidean geometry.<br /><br />The discovery of non-Euclidean geometry in cosmology does not in any way falsify the synthetic a priori truth of Euclidean geometry. Non-Euclidean geometry is BUILT on Euclidean geometry. You can't have one without the other. Both are necessary.<br /><br />What Kant proved is that our minds are a priori Euclidean AND non-Euclidean, although he did not make the non-Euclidean aspect explicit.<br /><br />Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-76449086582648356862013-09-12T10:47:30.425-07:002013-09-12T10:47:30.425-07:00Ugh... Hoppe.
Has anyone noticed the degradation ...Ugh... Hoppe.<br /><br />Has anyone noticed the degradation in quality of the Austrian school since Hayek died? I'll give each an awfulness rating between 1 and 5 stars -- 1 being least awful and 5 being most awful.<br /><br />Old populariser: Henry Hazlitt (3)<br />New populariser: Peter Schiff (5)<br /><br />Old philosopher: Ludwig Von Mises (3)<br />New philosopher: Hans-Hermann (5)<br /><br />I could go on, but you get the idea. Not surprising that a school with low quality initial intellectual capital would be subject to such a rapid depreciation, but boy was it fast. One generation!Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-85701301100481431052013-09-11T06:11:15.332-07:002013-09-11T06:11:15.332-07:00Haha, so Hoppe's idea is that because experts ...Haha, so Hoppe's idea is that because experts who make regular use of Euclidean geometry assume it to be true in their figures, they must be unable to distinguish between truth as necessary vs. contingent? That's amazing. It's like the negation of an appeal to anonymous authority — an appeal to personal incredulity inspired by the assumed ineptitude of an unnamed, homogeneous mass of experts. I've never seen its like before.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-26409491861761806102013-09-11T04:06:09.279-07:002013-09-11T04:06:09.279-07:00It is a good thing that a sound philosopher like y...It is a good thing that a sound philosopher like you takes a critical look at Hoppe, who unfortunately is rather influential in libertarian circles. Thanks for the effort, LK, and I am looking forward to more contributions.<br /><br />Personally, I am just too impatient to systematically critique Hoppe; I quickly get to the point where I feel offended by his irresponsible use of words. After all, from someone who purports to communicate with me, I expect a demonstrable effort at intelligibility.<br /><br />Am I wrong? The first sentence that you quote does not even seem to be a proper English sentence.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com