 |
 | Search this Thread |
| 01-07-2012, 03:00 PM | #46 |
 Originally posted by causey  Can a person observe anything without hypotheses? How? Facts just throw themselves at him? What would be a non-propositional fact--that is, a fact that does not involve judgment? (Any scientific observation requires working hypotheses.) | |
| 01-07-2012, 03:03 PM | #47 |
| Originally posted by les3547 I hope this is still a friendly conversation. I think in the past we've not agreed on the trustworthiness of rationalism, but it sure is nice to find an intelligent person to exchange ideas with, even if we don't agree. | |
| 01-07-2012, 03:06 PM | #48 |
| Originally posted by causey I apologize. I was needlessly--and, so, obtusely--ironic. (Proof that I'm not intelligent.) Still, I think you're arguing against straw men. | |
| 01-07-2012, 03:06 PM | #49 |
| Originally posted by les3547 Also, I'd disagree that bad outcomes are "totally" subjective, or that "it means nothing other than current preference." If economic practices end up with the majority of wealth possessed by 1% of the population, for instance, and nearly half the remaining population living below the poverty line, then the issues go way past fickle subjectivity and preference. | |
| 01-07-2012, 03:10 PM | #50 |
| Originally posted by les3547 Agreed! However, then we need observation. Where is the evidence that unregulated competition "works"? | |
| 01-07-2012, 04:20 PM | #51 |
| Originally posted by causey If you agree that observation calls for hypotheses, you might also agree that hypotheses need to be founded on reasons. What counts as evidence is a matter of understanding. Originally posted by causey If you think the epistemological primacy of the understanding over empirical data boils down to rationalism . . . There are two meanings for "understanding." There's the kind that I would call "true" understanding when one's conception matches reality; and so far I have only been able to do that when I observe what I've conceived. The second type is to understand a concept without regard to if it is "true" or not; of course no observation is necessary, but we also have no way if knowing if that understanding is true to reality. Rationalism involves the second sort of understanding, it is tautological in that it is justified by its own premises and internal logic. It might make all the sense in the world, but have little relation to reality. We just can't know until it is demonstrated. Originally posted by causey;1770912): . . . then you must believe that faith is inescapable. So does rationalism work? Well, if the centuries of rationalistic philosophy is an indication, I must conclude that for the most part it doesn't. Without the constraint of having to create a demonstration that shows an idea works, thinkers just ramble on forever with ideas, fighting each other purely on a rational basis. I mean, you can write volumes on why communism works, but the proof is in the doing. The best thing rationalism ever came up with was empiricism. Does it work? Well, it works with physical stuff at least, and that is the basis of my faith when discussing physical topics like politics and economics. If rationalism worked like that in any realm, I'd have faith in it too for the realm where it works. | |
| 01-07-2012, 07:49 PM | #52 |
| Originally posted by les3547 I've never thought otherwise. I never said or have thought "fittest" means strongest, fastest, etc. Quote: In the raw world of nature, it is survival of the fittest. Competition helps decide whose genes are passed on, and between predator and prey, who survives. Quote: Any individual organism which succeeds in reproducing itself is "fit" and will contribute to survival of its species, not just the "physically fittest" ones, though some of the population will be better adapted to the circumstances than others. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".[7] "Survival of the fit enough" is also emphasized by the fact that while direct competition has been observed between individuals, populations and species, there is little evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large groups. For example, between amphibians, reptiles and mammals; rather these animals have evolved by expanding into empty ecological niches Nature abhors a vacuum..........  | |
| 01-08-2012, 02:47 AM | #53 |
| Originally posted by les3547 There's the kind that I would call "true" understanding when one's conception matches reality; and so far I have only been able to do that when I observe what I've conceived. There is an important distinction to be made between facts and empirical perception: facts are post-perceptual. We perceive objects, not facts, and we come to talk of facts as soon as we reflect on the relationships between the properties of objects. Mere perception is unreflective. Facts come about in talk/thought, which doesn't mean they are the products of the mind. Still, their objectivity has nothing to do with the "hardness" of a purely "external world," since there is no "external world." Facts involve a judgment according to which X is so and so. The "is" can only "occur" in a judgment (or proposition). Correspondence to reality? Physical reality (in the scientific sense) is theory-dependent. Facts? Which facts? Newton's, Einstein's, Heisenberg's? Some swear by the string theory. Social-scientific facts are no different. Monetarism doesn't talk the language of Marxism; indeed, Marx and the Monetarists see economic reality differently. And one needs to seriously read both theories to arrive to a conclusion concerning their merits and shortcomings. But then it is on the basis of what that one can decide that a theory falls short of accounting for phenomena? We can say: the criterion is the correspondence to reality--and establishing that correspondence, which presupposes critically establishing what the facts are, is judging. Critical thinking--which ultimately is self-criticism: one internalizes ideas and struggles with them internally. That's why easily dismissing hard thought-efforts by others is fighting straw men. (One internalizes ideas by seriously considering them without ad hominem presumptions and pre-conceived conclusions. A serious reader asks himself: what does s/he (i.e., the author) means here? Does it stand? It seems to conflict with... ETC. This process of internal questioning is the process of the critical internalization of ideas.) When people insist there is a conflict concerning the correspondence between statements/ thoughts and facts, the disagreement usually concerns facts themselves--what the facts are. Last edited by causey; 01-08-2012 at 10:52 AM. | |
| 01-08-2012, 05:50 AM | #54 |
| Originally posted by les3547 Originally posted by jeffkrol Quote Actually it is survival of the "reproductively fit".................... and can have little to do w/ "strength" ect.... you could be the strongest, fastest, most cunning predator of species "A" but if it "A" wiped out by it's own biological flaw (some new bacteria 100% fatal) you as the "strongest" ect. with a inflexible diet will surely go extinct....... Keep that in mind.............. I've never thought otherwise. I never said or have thought "fittest" means strongest, fastest, etc. Les And actually, role of cooperation and symbiosis in evolution. The 'fittest' also means 'those that fit in best'. The over-valuing competition (combat to the death and/or capitulation) and the individual's ability reproduce (i.e. have sex with as many female partners as possible, remember, we're talking about men making up economic theories here) in making economic metaphors has led to much error. Perhaps not in the protean originators of a 'school' but certainly in their followers. | |
| 01-08-2012, 07:58 AM | #55 |
| Originally posted by vonBaloney Preference is preference even if 99% of the people at a particular time have a particular one in mind. As long as you have mental choice to prefer something else (which you surely do), then it is a subjective preference, and essentially arbitrary. Just look at your statement as an example -- it is filled with subjective notions. The poverty line? That's just an arbitrary line that moves with the median income -- we could theoretically have half the population be below the poverty line AND living in mansions with want for nothing essential. And if that were the case, would whatever the top 1% had even matter to most? (It probably still would, but for different reasons). Unrealistic and fanciful example? Don't be so sure. Looking at America today from a POV of a plague-ridden peasant of the 14th century, we ARE all living in mansions with want for nothing. Times change, and so do preferences. When it comes to things like 'poverty,' it sometimes just doesn't much matter what *kind* of home you don't have: (Or even how much *stuff* you might happen to have, in recent times: quite often the basic needs like food and shelter simply don't have a 'medieval option' to go back to: it's not like most people can just go buy some land, farm it, and chop wood, especially if they aren't considered 'economically viable' even in these terms.) Some 'medieval' problems were actually quite similar to the situations that have been developing here: for instance, I've somehow managed to retain a library that would make medieval scholars jealous, ...it doesn't mean that the 'wealth' of that really would necessarily pay a month's rent if I sold it off, especially not in a city. If you're afraid to run up the heating bill cause you have to pay the utilities for it, sometimes the notion of a wood stove or even open hearth might seem like 'wealth.'  Certainly 'Cold and hungry' isn't that different an *experience,* however you scale the economics. Sometimes we lose perspective about what we really *do* have, due to 'scarcity mentalities,' but the effects on our experience aren't that much different. Kind of like when the Republicans complain, '99 percent of people have a refrigerator, you're fine,' ...well, it's not so easy to live *without* one, and it's not much use if the power's shut off, either. (If you'd ever lived anywhere without access to kitchen facilities, you do find your food budget doesn't go far. Convenience foods that may be a luxury for some or freakin' magic to one of our ancestors, may end up being for you, 'Additional expense for less nutrition.' ) Certainly, if you compare what any food item costs these days, or the minimum prices of food and shelter and heat and the new modern necessity for most of transportation, ...to the value of an hour of human labor... you have lots of people just squeezed out. And the 'poverty' experience is just in a different shape: in fact, it's kind of worse and weirder in some ways. Even in medieval times, 'a job' wasn't so much treated as some kind of 'consumer commodity' (Interestingly, your ability to go into *debt* is used as a *job qualification* via the credit system. Curious.) ...there was almost always, at least, plenty of work to do if a village wanted to eat or be prosperous: and you wouldn't see so much of, 'Housing prices have tanked, how can we keep the rents up? Destroy housing! ' Anyway, the real point is that only the shapes have changed: people have an idea of 'poverty' as 'You don't have any *stuff,*' And it's usually not like that: it's something that may be changing, but poverty in recent times has often been 'You have too much of stuff that's not worth anything.' You could end up accumulating a lot of 'Stuff people threw out,' often multiple half-working things, and it's not really 'wealth' except inasmuch as it can serve to try and keep you in basic needs.' Mind you, we *should* have higher standards by now: how we define 'what's a problem' may confuse the issue about what that *experience* is, what the value or quality of someone's life is or isn't. I mean, I would have died at birth without modern medicine: (It also looks like I wouldn't have had these various conditions if *not* for modern medicine, actually,) ...if you don't get the health care for lack of money, you're pretty much just as dead as if that medicine didn't exist. And that's why we still need to be working on issues of poverty, and indeed income inequality. Not trying to go for a new corporate feudalism with debt-serfdom and all that. And, like Nesster says: Quote: The over-valuing competition (combat to the death and/or capitulation) and the individual's ability reproduce (i.e. have sex with as many female partners as possible, remember, we're talking about men making up economic theories here) in making economic metaphors has led to much error. Perhaps not in the protean originators of a 'school' but certainly in their followers. Certainly, that idea that 'competition' and 'dominance' are all that's important, leads to some pretty dangerous blind spots about some pretty medieval concerns we tend to live in denial of: like possibility of famine, mass displacement, or other vulnerabilities that can only really be addressed through cooperation: we don't live in fear of famine in the US, but the way we've overstacked our agriculture, especially with utterly insane (but-profit-maximizing) monocultures: (for instance, I like russet potatoes, too, but as an Irish person, all I can say to finding out that over ninety five percent of our crop is the same variety, I just have to be, 'What are we, stupid?) And what Monsanto's been doing with.... Making sure there's no *seed grain* except from them?* What could *possibly* go wrong there? 'Competition' ain't always good, of course. That's why it needs to be balanced. With things like public and common interests. Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 01-08-2012 at 08:27 AM. | |
| 01-08-2012, 01:40 PM | #56 |
| Originally posted by causey Critical thinking--which ultimately is self-criticism: one internalizes ideas and struggles with them internally. That's why easily dismissing hard thought-efforts by others is fighting straw men. (One internalizes ideas by seriously considering them without ad hominem presumptions and pre-conceived conclusions. A serious reader asks himself: what does s/he (i.e., the author) means here? Does it stand? It seems to conflict with... ETC. This process of internal questioning is the process of the critical internalization of ideas.) I ventured a criticism of rationalism (as it relates to a physical theory), which is very specifically to think without much reference to observations, and/or without appropriate commitment to test one’s conceptions with a demonstration it “works.” That’s my pragmatist side talking because I haven’t been able to conceive of a better way of testing an idea than by seeing how it works. Why? Because unlike what we only think, when we put an idea into action, objective reality has a powerful say in how things will go. John Kenneth Galbraith said along these lines (I’m trying to inch back toward economics), “. . . the bureaucratic and managerial problems of running a socialist economy have been far, far greater than Marx predicted. If economic performance in a socialist society had come as easily and with prospects as brilliant intellectually and otherwise as Marx took for granted . . . there would be no capitalism left. No power of propaganda would have held people to capitalism.” IOW, there is no more powerful indicator of what's true than a demonstration. So while I fully accept the value of thinking up new ideas, theories, etc., I only consider that half the equation. If it is done in a testing-commitment vacuum, or ignoring facts which suggest the model doesn't correspond to reality, then one must suspect that people grasping at the idea have some emotional or personal reason for doing so that outweighs their concern for trueness. To conclude, the idea of the need to confirm by demonstration came up in this thread when I hinted at the common criticism of the Austrian school’s scanty concern for empirical data available for a couple of hundred years. For example, that while counting on Austrian sorts of principles from the early 1800s up to 1930 there were eight major recessions that turned into depressions in the US, while after Keynesian remedies, none of the nine or so major recessions since 1930 have sunk into a depression. Now, if we were to apply Keynes theory whole hog and disregard the fact that his theory doesn’t deal with inflation, we too would end up ignoring the feedback reality is giving us. And Libertarianism? Well, I don’t think we’ve seen a civilization run on its principles, so we have no demonstration of its effectiveness. While I do think the fact that so many Libertarians embrace Austrian economics is telling, I can only intellectually speculate that if Libertarianism became the social norm it would result in isolationism both interpersonally and between nations. Last edited by les3547; 01-09-2012 at 08:01 AM. | |
| 01-09-2012, 08:51 AM | #57 |
| Originally posted by les3547 I’m all for critical thinking, but yes, thinking as much as possible with observations that have been accepted from repeated observation; and then on the second tier, thinking with what can inferred from observations, but with a commitment to test ideas. I realize some great thinking has been done on subjects that can never be tested; Spinoza and Eckhart are two my favorites. But that is a different realm of thinking than physical circumstances we operate under daily and actually can test. I ventured a criticism of rationalism (as it relates to a physical theory), which is very specifically to think without much reference to observations, and/or without appropriate commitment to test one’s conceptions with a demonstration it “works.” That’s my pragmatist side talking because I haven’t been able to conceive of a better way of testing an idea than by seeing how it works. Why? Because unlike what we only think, when we put an idea into action, objective reality has a powerful say in how things will go. John Kenneth Galbraith said along these lines (I’m trying to inch back toward economics), “. . . the bureaucratic and managerial problems of running a socialist economy have been far, far greater than Marx predicted. If economic performance in a socialist society had come as easily and with prospects as brilliant intellectually and otherwise as Marx took for granted . . . there would be no capitalism left. No power of propaganda would have held people to capitalism.” IOW, there is no more powerful indicator of what's true than a demonstration. So while I fully accept the value of thinking up new ideas, theories, etc., I only consider that half the equation. If it is done in a testing-commitment vacuum, or ignoring facts which suggest the model doesn't correspond to reality, then one must suspect that people grasping at the idea have some emotional or personal reason for doing so that outweighs their concern for trueness. To conclude, the idea of the need to confirm by demonstration came up in this thread when I hinted at the common criticism of the Austrian school’s scanty concern for empirical data available for a couple of hundred years. For example, that while counting on Austrian sorts of principles from the early 1800s up to 1930 there were eight major recessions that turned into depressions in the US, while after Keynesian remedies, none of the nine or so major recessions since 1930 have sunk into a depression. Now, if we were to apply Keynes theory whole hog and disregard the fact that his theory doesn’t deal with inflation, we too would end up ignoring the feedback reality is giving us. And Libertarianism? Well, I don’t think we’ve seen a civilization run on its principles, so we have no demonstration of its effectiveness. While I do think the fact that so many Libertarians embrace Austrian economics is telling, I can only intellectually speculate that if Libertarianism became the social norm it would result in isolationism both interpersonally and between nations. There are valid observations made by economists of the Austrian school, but its rather firm rejection of statistics and math has created an opportunity to be seized upon by the politically faith based. Granted, the observation of the limits of empirical methods on economics is to some extent valid, but to rely upon theory without "proof" is to rely excessively upon the perfection of human intellect and the ability of humans to recognize all relevant factors. In particular, the Austrian assumption that all action is rational (and therefore can be deduced) in fact contradicts their own assessment of how the business cycle works. I am not an economist and have fairly little interest in debating the minutiae of differences and issues of theory which Caplan points out, but I do fault the evolution from economic to political theory in its place in Libertarianism. Economics is not a complete end unto itself, but one of the considerations involved in an entire organization of a society and a world. However, back to the original topic, I think Krugman has a better handle on the debt of a sovereign with its own fiat currency than most. Last edited by GeneV; 01-09-2012 at 11:04 AM. | |
|
| Bookmarks |
| Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
| america, assets, britain, claims, debt, governments, nation, taxes, u.s |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| NYT/Krugman: Keynes Was Right | jolepp | General Talk | 11 | 12-31-2011 07:49 PM |
| NYT/Krugman: The Post-Truth Campaign | jolepp | General Talk | 1 | 12-27-2011 01:07 AM |
| NYT/Krugman op-ed: G.O.P. Monetary Madness | jolepp | General Talk | 4 | 12-19-2011 08:32 PM |
| The Depression: If Only Things Were That Good (NYT) | jolepp | General Talk | 42 | 10-12-2011 11:55 PM |
| China understands, US still "doesn't get it" | jeffkrol | General Talk | 7 | 03-06-2011 04:50 AM |
