I don't understand why he has to hate on the logical positivists ... they weren't economists and they didn't espouse economic propositions. They were philosophers - period. Blame Keynes all you like - that's appropriate, but going after the logical positivists and blaming them for bad economic views is not rational. EDIT, not sure he specifically says 'logical positivists' but when he says the Vienna circle, this is the group known as the logical positivists. The logical positivists are also different from positivists in general - these are very different philosophical groups - important to know if anyone wants to look all this up.
+Philosopher Rex The point is that most modern economists take their methodological views and epistemological rationale from those logical positivists. They just applied this philosophy in their work.
IMO, he's making errors in his philosophical history. The views of logical positivists didn't derive from David Hume. They came from Wittgenstein (his early work - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) and before that from Bertrand Russell, who was Wittgenstein's mentor. These individuals thought they could pull 'truth' from the physical world (falsely IMO) - and some of them recanted this view later in life. David Hume on the other hand said that you could not derive 'truth' from the physical world. Hume's most famous proposition is the 'problem of induction', which indicates that truth about the physical world is impossible to know absolutely, hence the physical world and effectively all economic value is SUBJECTIVE!!! -- which is in complete agreement with the Austrian view.
+Philosopher Rex What is your actual name, and where did you earn your Doctorate in Phil or Econ? I seriously doubt that you ever even read David Hume or Wittgenstein or Bertrand Russell. Luke Sacher Ethical Culture Fieldston and Reed College Please Google my name for confirmation.
+Philosopher Rex You are correct. Many mistakes here. First-off, Popper admitted that falsification cannot be used as a final demarcation criteria, but is rather a rule of thumb. Secondly, logical positivism was abandoned by nearly everyone, including Wittgenstein, who as you said, was a big part of inspiring it. It was never supposed to apply to economics, but was about the philosophy of science. The fact is that no final demarcation criteria has been yet created that can determine what is and is not science. This was also all but proven by Feyerabend and others. Those who think this is a huge problem, are just looking for certainty where none can be had. The closest demarcation criteria possible would probably be based on Wittgenstein's "family resemblance" concept from his later work. Finally, I'd personally classify economics under sociology. The good news of this is that I agree with Mises pretty much 100%. The bad news is that the social sciences are not only not hard sciences, it seems they will not be so in any reasonable future, due to the complexity of biological organisms, subjectivity (as you pointed out) and other very difficult problems that we aren't going to get to hard science levels of testable certainty... I don't see this as a problem, but for those who want to "prove they are correct"... I'd guess this could be frustrating.
+Philosopher Rex Sorry for double post, but quote bug is annoying... Just wanted to add that your point about Hume is a great point also, that is a common misunderstanding. Let's not blame Hume, whose ideas are still fresh today after all of these years.
"Reality is Euclidean" is a just a hypothetical statement about the physical world that could in theory be falsified, as it eventually was. The point being made is that there exist other types of statements that cannot be falsified.
@@io3213 Obviously there are statements that cannot be falsified, but when they are applied to reality outside of our heads they amount to nothing more than wishful thinking.
@@io3213 Facts are derived from the real world not our brains Explanations and models originate in our brains. Explanations and models that cannot be falsified are just projections of thoughts onto the world around us and how we wish it to be...wishful thinking.
@@DocAkins To derive a fact is to make use of one's brain. Therefore new facts can be discovered and demonstrated as true. You cannot logically argue against the claim that voluntary exchanges are mutually beneficial, for example. It would be silly to test empirically just as one wouldn't go around measuring triangles to test the Pythagorean theorem. I also don't see how either observation would qualify as "wishful thinking".
Good and important thoughts, but before talking about the philosophy of science accurately more research and understanding would be needed. I agree that economics should not be treated as a hard science, but this is due to progress in philosophy of science, not due to mistakes in it. My suggestion is to read Feyerabend to understand how science is theoretically not certain (it must be this way to be science), and then, indeed, realize that when it comes to practical matters of toasters toasting and airplanes flying, that we can get plenty done (including in economics) without settling all issue in the philosophy of science, and treating economics as a soft science e.g. sociology. Having certainty is not needed to engage in very valuable conjecture.
+Kon Berner Do you understand the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Where did you ever study Physics or advanced Mathematics? You are nothing but a self-aggrandizing blowhard, IMHO. Prove me wrong and cite your credentials.
Democracy: the God that Failed. I highly recommend this book.
+Mark Portman Man, economy and state did that for me. Democracy: the God that Failed turned me into a far-right ancap.
Hans' "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property" is this most profoundly educational book I've ever read.
I don't understand why he has to hate on the logical positivists ... they weren't economists and they didn't espouse economic propositions. They were philosophers - period. Blame Keynes all you like - that's appropriate, but going after the logical positivists and blaming them for bad economic views is not rational. EDIT, not sure he specifically says 'logical positivists' but when he says the Vienna circle, this is the group known as the logical positivists. The logical positivists are also different from positivists in general - these are very different philosophical groups - important to know if anyone wants to look all this up.
+Philosopher Rex The point is that most modern economists take their methodological views and epistemological rationale from those logical positivists. They just applied this philosophy in their work.
+Marcos Paulo Precisely! Well said- bravo.
Absolutely excellent, thanks for reposting this. I'll be sure to look for Prof. Hoppe's work in the future. By the way, 26:50-- can you say, owned?
IMO, he's making errors in his philosophical history. The views of logical positivists didn't derive from David Hume. They came from Wittgenstein (his early work - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) and before that from Bertrand Russell, who was Wittgenstein's mentor. These individuals thought they could pull 'truth' from the physical world (falsely IMO) - and some of them recanted this view later in life. David Hume on the other hand said that you could not derive 'truth' from the physical world. Hume's most famous proposition is the 'problem of induction', which indicates that truth about the physical world is impossible to know absolutely, hence the physical world and effectively all economic value is SUBJECTIVE!!! -- which is in complete agreement with the Austrian view.
+Philosopher Rex What is your actual name, and where did you earn your Doctorate in Phil or Econ? I seriously doubt that you ever even read David Hume or Wittgenstein or Bertrand Russell.
Luke Sacher
Ethical Culture Fieldston and Reed College
Please Google my name for confirmation.
+Philosopher Rex You are correct. Many mistakes here. First-off, Popper admitted that falsification cannot be used as a final demarcation criteria, but is rather a rule of thumb. Secondly, logical positivism was abandoned by nearly everyone, including Wittgenstein, who as you said, was a big part of inspiring it. It was never supposed to apply to economics, but was about the philosophy of science.
The fact is that no final demarcation criteria has been yet created that can determine what is and is not science. This was also all but proven by Feyerabend and others. Those who think this is a huge problem, are just looking for certainty where none can be had. The closest demarcation criteria possible would probably be based on Wittgenstein's "family resemblance" concept from his later work.
Finally, I'd personally classify economics under sociology. The good news of this is that I agree with Mises pretty much 100%. The bad news is that the social sciences are not only not hard sciences, it seems they will not be so in any reasonable future, due to the complexity of biological organisms, subjectivity (as you pointed out) and other very difficult problems that we aren't going to get to hard science levels of testable certainty... I don't see this as a problem, but for those who want to "prove they are correct"... I'd guess this could be frustrating.
+Kon Berner And yet you feel qualified to decide what is "correct" and what is not? Where did you earn your Doctorate?
+Philosopher Rex Sorry for double post, but quote bug is annoying... Just wanted to add that your point about Hume is a great point also, that is a common misunderstanding. Let's not blame Hume, whose ideas are still fresh today after all of these years.
No, continuing to test and question is not stupid. It led to the realization that reality is not Euclidean due to gravity.
"Reality is Euclidean" is a just a hypothetical statement about the physical world that could in theory be falsified, as it eventually was.
The point being made is that there exist other types of statements that cannot be falsified.
@@io3213 Obviously there are statements that cannot be falsified, but when they are applied to reality outside of our heads they amount to nothing more than wishful thinking.
@@DocAkins Some facts of economics are unfalsifiable and highly relevant to the real world.
@@io3213 Facts are derived from the real world not our brains Explanations and models originate in our brains. Explanations and models that cannot be falsified are just projections of thoughts onto the world around us and how we wish it to be...wishful thinking.
@@DocAkins To derive a fact is to make use of one's brain. Therefore new facts can be discovered and demonstrated as true. You cannot logically argue against the claim that voluntary exchanges are mutually beneficial, for example. It would be silly to test empirically just as one wouldn't go around measuring triangles to test the Pythagorean theorem. I also don't see how either observation would qualify as "wishful thinking".
Good and important thoughts, but before talking about the philosophy of science accurately more research and understanding would be needed. I agree that economics should not be treated as a hard science, but this is due to progress in philosophy of science, not due to mistakes in it. My suggestion is to read Feyerabend to understand how science is theoretically not certain (it must be this way to be science), and then, indeed, realize that when it comes to practical matters of toasters toasting and airplanes flying, that we can get plenty done (including in economics) without settling all issue in the philosophy of science, and treating economics as a soft science e.g. sociology. Having certainty is not needed to engage in very valuable conjecture.
+Kon Berner Do you understand the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Where did you ever study Physics or advanced Mathematics? You are nothing but a self-aggrandizing blowhard, IMHO. Prove me wrong and cite your credentials.