This was my favorite lecture of the week at Mises U. Hoppe is an amazing intellectual, astute and well-spoken. He and Walter Block have had a profound effect on the way I think about society, exchange, research, etc. As a repentant sociologist, I had to reevaluate my very approach to life, casting off the "fetters of iron" of empiricism and mulling over the praxeology of Mises and the "synthetic a priori" propositions of Kant. It was mentally revolutionary, and I'm still in recovery.
His argument on the implicit constancy assumption in empirical economies is true. All observable economic data is just the result of human action and every action itself was acted within the particular circumstances every acting human was confronted with. And since economy is defined as the interactions between every economically acting human being, every single action influences the particular circumstances of other actors. Thus if one states scientific discovery from economic data he needs to assume constancy of the actors and their acts that resulted into this data, which is pretty obvious bullshit by definition of the dynamic economic process. Short: Empirical economics assumes general natural law in human acting that every self-reflecting human being can identify as not true.
20:37: "A straight line is the shortest distance between 2 points" From a mathematical point of view, this is generally only true in certain (euclidean) spaces, but not all ones. And in reality, this is also not always true, because this hypothesis became refuted by experiments supporting the theory of general relativity, which states that the shortest distance between 2 points is a geodesic, not necessarily a line.
It is even physically impossible to verify distances distances arbitrarily precise, because at last at the plank scale, the heisenberg uncertainty principle kicks in, meaning that if your object must not move more than a certain momentum(dp < constant) in order to be measured, than its location cannot also be measured with arbitrarily precise(dx < constant). Thus, one can't even measure exact lenght or width which would be required to check for straight lines/points in reality.
>Just because they can't be measured, on an exact >scale, does not mean they don't exist. by existing as a real thing, I mean it exists as a physical thing which could be perceived sensationally. If one has a transcendental a priori concept of a straight line in ones mind, then it actually does exist in ones mind, but not necessarily as a physical sensational thing. So it also depends how you define the word "to exist", maybe I was a bit unclear on that.
You're right, I was wrong too. As a result of the beat interference of both light waves, you'll get ~544nm yellowy-green colored and ~5930nm infra-red light waves. One will get a varying degree of the original 2 colors green and yellow to the yellowy-green and infra-red ones, due to a varying degree of partial beat interferences due to different materials(polarization etc).
If you define: green := reflects light around 520nm and yellow := reflects light around 570nm, than an object actually CAN be green and yellow all around at the same time.
Especially in economics, one needs to perceive space, time and causality to make mathematical models(or rather to test them against the perceptions), so I think that economic statements are at least partially transcendental - and I agree with the author that there is at least a third category of statements besides purely analytical or empirical ones(even though his proof is a little fishy), namely the Kantian transcendental category.
You're right, I screwed up the example and it is not clear what I actually meant. Here's another example: if person A is part of the friends of person B and person B is part of the friends of person C, then person A is not necessarily part of the friends of person C.
Not quite. As I understand it, quantum physics posits that a particle's position has a probability field. That is, it's position can never be exactly known, only the probability of it's existence in a given space.
>At ant given moment in time, a set of electrons can >be lined up just so as to produce a straight line. If that would actually be possible, then it would be a straight alignment of electrons, and not an actual straight line. the concept of a straight line could be perceived by your mind(compared against) when it receives the sensation of a straight alignment of electrons.
3) 21:23 > "Whichever object is green all over cannot be > yellow all over at the same time" > It strikes me that this says something about > the real world. One actually need a definition of what "green" and "yellow" mean and their interactions in order to make implications to the real world from this statement, so the statement doesn't work all alone without further premises.
@zsignal Yes, I realize that, but that's not the point. From the standpoint of someone who believes he's the king of Spain the statement "You are the king of Spain" is correct, but that doesn't mean he really IS the king of Spain. I'm asking about who is correct. As for your other comment: yes, Hoppe's epistemological points are Kantian. However, I think Kant would say the example I gave is synthetic because Kant believed we have an a priori intuition of space, which that statement presupposes.
but due to quantum theory, all physical things don't have exact precise borders, every particle has a certain extend as it is present not only in 1 place at the same time. Because of this, you can't even have exactly straight line-shaped things.
That's not what quantum mechanics states. You're thinking of quantum superposition, which is a statistical uncertainty as to what states a particle can occupy. All possible states are realized in the multiverse, but each state in its own universe. For more on this, see David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997). Prof. Deutsch is the inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device.
To make economic statements, 1 should make mathematical models translatable to and falsifiable by reality, and not mere single hypothesises testing, I agree with the author on that. The mathematics of these models themselves are purely analytic, even though one needs to interpret the results of the model in the context of reality.
person B always just means the person B, and not a group. if _person A_ (is part of the friends of) _person B_ and _person B_ (is part of the friends of) _person C_, then _person A_ (is part of the friends of) _person C_ or not _person A_ (is part of the friends of) _person C_. (is part of the friends of) is an intransitive relation between 2 elements of the same type _person_.
>There is more to life than meets the eye. I think this is true. There are all kinds of abstract structural and informational concepts in reality, even though these concepts do not physically exist.
You are right that a geodesic refers to the shortest path between 2 points on a surface. According to general relativity, space-time is also a surface(of a higher dimensional space-time) that can be curved(gravitational field) itself under the influence of mass-energy, so the overall shortest distance between 2 points in space-time is a geodesic too and not a line(if some mass-energy is actually present). And what do you mean by "behavioral patterns of quantum particles"?
@synestheticmonotony We're talking about two different statements here. The first is that in Euclidean geometry some properties hold, such as the shortest distance between two points is a line. The second is that Euclidean geometry describes reality. The first is an a priori statement, not empirical at all. The second is an empirical statement, not a priori at all. That Euclidean geometry doesn't actually describe the real world is besides the point. You're right, we may substitute Minkowski.
2) 20:37 > "A straight line is the shortest distance between 2 points" this is true in some mathematical spaces, but this is not a scientific hypothesis, because it isn't scientific, because neither of both terms "straight line" and "point" are real world objects: they are transcendental concepts: those are required to grasp the real world in the first place, even though they themselves are imaginary and not part of the real world.
@05121784 your comment has more to do with Rand being wrong in her methodology rather than Hoppe not being Kantian influenced. Hoppe was a student of Jurgen Habermas who resonated strongly with neo-kantian epistemology. Hoppe was a marxist then, but was converted to capitalism by Friedman, but he still held strongly to the methodology taught by Habermas. He found Mises and he was then satisfied.
4) 21:56 > "If A is part of B, and B is part of C, > than A is part of C also" > A real statement about real things This is true for transitive relations, but not every relation is transitive. There are counterexamples in both math and real world: if person A is part of the group of frinds of person B and person B is part of the group of friends of person C, than person A is not necessarily part of the group of friends of C.
There are real things that have an approximated shape of a point or a straight line, but the concepts themselves don't exist as real things. Acording to Immanuel Kant, space is a category that must be known a priori to any sensation in order to perceive it spatially. This category is neither sensational nor purely analytic(because it's required to grasp some sensations), so it builds a bridge between the 2 - transcendental. And I guess a straight line and a point are subcategories of space.
@synestheticmonotony I'm not sure I understand this question or your earlier question about curves or vectors. Minkowski provided a mathematical formalism for Einstein's special theory of relativity. His famous quote is "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." Consult wikipedia for the precise details about it.
The statements he gives as examples he claims are proof of the error of the Logical Positivists are in fact definitions. And it is true that any definition is as good as another - but only when they are first made! We as humans don't determine the validity of definitions, Nature and the market interaction does. This is called natural selection. The successful definition maintains itself in the lexicon by right of survival, not reason, nor empirical verification. Logical Positivism is correct.
Though I am sympathetic to Hoppe's overall point, I consider some of the examples he gives of statements that are true a priori (require no experience/testing) and are synthetic (describe the real world) to be weak and improper. Take, for example, "No object can be both completely red and completely blue at the same time." Though this may describe objects in the real world, that does not make the statement synthetic. Is not the truth of that statement implied in the definition of "completely"?
@IvanTheHeathen From reading Hoppe's "Economic Science and the Austrian Method," it seems his praxeological method is highly influenced by Kant. From a Kantian perspective, synthetic a priori propositions are where the predicate concept is not contained in the subject concept. According Kant, it would be neither synthetic or analytic. The definition of "describes the real world" is more similar to Quinne's definition in "Two Dogmas of Empiricism."
@afaultytoaster Why do you feel you can? Matter has both particle & wave-like properties, but electrons have more wave-like character than particle character which allow electrons to behave this way. You and I cannot be in two places at once.
Empirical evidences need constants! Are Human rational individual constants? You cannot calculate or build a rational hypothesis on an ever changing, subjective person. That was quite evident until the 50s. I believe we should return to that tradition in the field of economics.
I agree with everything the guy in the video said in the beginning and I even arrive to the same conclusions at the end, but I disagree with most thing he stated in the middle of the video. There are several logical and definitional problems. I'll try to sum them up.
> And nonetheless we have recognized something > that is true, about a real phenomena. This claimed real phenomena is actually false, because a regular object, which is made out of bosons(if you strip all electrons), can be at the same location than some other one(within the constraints of the uncertainty principle). So, this actually is a scientific hypothesis which actually got falsified by experiments, namely by the existences and properties of lasers, super conductivity and super fluidity.
I'm a little unhappy with your definition of the term "analytical statement" that states that analytical statements are just definitions. While I agree that every analytical statement depends on definitions, which are essential, they may also be statements derived from definitions.
WOW he is tackling perhaps the toughest question around. Does objective knowledge exist? Necessarily, if one answers no to this question, you destroy all existence. Think about it...for a while. Similar to the classic, "if a tree falls in the middle of a forest". Question, For those subjectivists or positivists ... I'll ask this ... Does human life require sustenance?
What IS relevant is that his statement can be reduced to a tautology. That is, it is, indeed, an axiomatic statement, and doesn't say anything more about the world than the statement All bachelors are male. Same thing with "no two straight lines can enclose a space" - this is a statement which can be reduced to a mathematical proof. It's, in his terms, "definitional"
@afaultytoaster Anyone who's taken at the very least a serious high school physics class knows this. It's also in your 2nd semester college physics course ;D
If, by "empirical evidence" you mean things like "utiles" which attempt to give precise, quantitative values to things... the flaws in such empiricism are abounds. Preferences and values, in reality, are ordinal in nature. You don't want object X 6.25 more utiles than object Y and 24.6 utiles more than object Z, etc. You like X, Y and Z inordinate to each other. It isn't about "logic" so much as it's about unpredictable human action. Empiricism always fails to account for praxeology.
his attack on the logical positivists isn't justified by his examples, in which he states relations between things that are properties of the objects/things. So when he says no thing can be in two places at once - it is built into the 'definition' of any single thing that it resides on one place. That is why they are self-evident. They are not empirical statements. All of his examples are like this.
Absolutely nothing about Hoppe's presentation can be attributed to Kant. Precisely the opposite. Hoppe merely illustrates that we are able acquire knowledge through reasoning. Kant is the evil opponent of reasoning. Ayn Rand has written beautifully to inform.
1) 20:08 > "No 2 objects can occupy the same place." > I would claim this says something about > the real world; it is not just a definition. true > Nonetheless, is this a hypothesis? What strikes me, > this is suretainly not a hypothesis. actually, it is, and a false one on top of that.
Chances are that you get wrong results(like the keynesian), than your model doesn't describe reality well enough or your input data is wrong, but that's NEVER the fault of mathematics. In the case of the keynesians, I think they screwed up their models and neglected necessary perceptions.
why do austrians feel they are qualified to make pronouncements about areas of academia far outside their own expertise? 20:00 he says that matter can't be in two places at once. the double-slit experiment proves him wrong.
I do not understand his examples. For instance, he refers to a number of statements about Euclidean geometry as being about the real world and being obviously true. They are true statements in Euclidean geometry. But, that Euclidean geometry describes reality is still an empirical statement, no? In fact, it's false! Locally, spacetime is described by flat Minkowski geometry, and globally it's curved!
I disagree respectfully! To begin with, what is a science? And what is a scientific method? It is impossible to "test" or establish economic principles when you are dealing with subjective human actions and choices. The problems with keynesians and other schools of economics is that they tend to ignore the center point of all economic activities. That's the individual, the consumer! Understanding the individual actions are the best way to establish economics laws! That's why I love Austrians!!
Following on from AFRIKTODAY, there is no such thing as utiles in Austrian economics because there are no constants in human, subjective value. You may have 10 apples, Today you decided to eat the first, bake the second two and then trade the rest for oranges. tomorrow you decided to do something else with your 10 apples(my examples) You can give your values numbers, but only an order. Its margianl value. This video watch?v=DFe-PRKud5g Followed by watch?v=h36Dni1ZPX0 Should esplain it
The assertion of the a priori nature of economics is embarrassing to a empiricist libertarian as myself. The statements made are not tautologies, the denial of which are not self-contradictory. The statements aren't necessary. They are not laws of thought but require some sense data to establish. It might be, and often is, sensible to uphold the state
This bro is wicked smart.
To say the least.
So to speak
This was my favorite lecture of the week at Mises U. Hoppe is an amazing intellectual, astute and well-spoken. He and Walter Block have had a profound effect on the way I think about society, exchange, research, etc. As a repentant sociologist, I had to reevaluate my very approach to life, casting off the "fetters of iron" of empiricism and mulling over the praxeology of Mises and the "synthetic a priori" propositions of Kant. It was mentally revolutionary, and I'm still in recovery.
what a lecture...!
I'll have to come back and listen to it again...
This lecture should be given to every econ student. Blow my mind!
Dear sir I am so very encouraged to find a Libertarian who appreciates the scientific method. You may be lonely on planet youtube but best wishes.
His argument on the implicit constancy assumption in empirical economies is true.
All observable economic data is just the result of human action and every action itself was acted within the particular circumstances every acting human was confronted with. And since economy is defined as the interactions between every economically acting human being, every single action influences the particular circumstances of other actors. Thus if one states scientific discovery from economic data he needs to assume constancy of the actors and their acts that resulted into this data, which is pretty obvious bullshit by definition of the dynamic economic process.
Short: Empirical economics assumes general natural law in human acting that every self-reflecting human being can identify as not true.
20:37:
"A straight line is the shortest distance between 2 points"
From a mathematical point of view, this is generally only true in certain (euclidean) spaces, but not all ones.
And in reality, this is also not always true, because this hypothesis became refuted by experiments supporting the theory of general relativity, which states that the shortest distance between 2 points is a geodesic, not necessarily a line.
It is even physically impossible to verify distances distances arbitrarily precise, because at last at the plank scale, the heisenberg uncertainty principle kicks in, meaning that if your object must not move more than a certain momentum(dp < constant) in order to be measured, than its location cannot also be measured with arbitrarily precise(dx < constant). Thus, one can't even measure exact lenght or width which would be required to check for straight lines/points in reality.
>Just because they can't be measured, on an exact
>scale, does not mean they don't exist.
by existing as a real thing, I mean it exists as a physical thing which could be perceived sensationally.
If one has a transcendental a priori concept of a straight line in ones mind, then it actually does exist in ones mind, but not necessarily as a physical sensational thing.
So it also depends how you define the word "to exist", maybe I was a bit unclear on that.
You're right, I was wrong too. As a result of the beat interference of both light waves, you'll get ~544nm yellowy-green colored and ~5930nm infra-red light waves.
One will get a varying degree of the original 2 colors green and yellow to the yellowy-green and infra-red ones, due to a varying degree of partial beat interferences due to different materials(polarization etc).
If you define: green := reflects light around 520nm
and yellow := reflects light around 570nm, than an object actually CAN be green and yellow all around at the same time.
Especially in economics, one needs to perceive space, time and causality to make mathematical models(or rather to test them against the perceptions), so I think that economic statements are at least partially transcendental - and I agree with the author that there is at least a third category of statements besides purely analytical or empirical ones(even though his proof is a little fishy), namely the Kantian transcendental category.
You're right, I screwed up the example and it is not clear what I actually meant. Here's another example:
if person A is part of the friends of person B
and person B is part of the friends of person C,
then person A is not necessarily part of the friends of person C.
Not quite. As I understand it, quantum physics posits that a particle's position has a probability field. That is, it's position can never be exactly known, only the probability of it's existence in a given space.
>At ant given moment in time, a set of electrons can
>be lined up just so as to produce a straight line.
If that would actually be possible, then it would be a straight alignment of electrons, and not an actual straight line. the concept of a straight line could be perceived by your mind(compared against) when it receives the sensation of a straight alignment of electrons.
3)
21:23
> "Whichever object is green all over cannot be
> yellow all over at the same time"
> It strikes me that this says something about
> the real world.
One actually need a definition of what "green" and "yellow" mean and their interactions in order to make implications to the real world from this statement, so the statement doesn't work all alone without further premises.
@zsignal Yes, I realize that, but that's not the point. From the standpoint of someone who believes he's the king of Spain the statement "You are the king of Spain" is correct, but that doesn't mean he really IS the king of Spain. I'm asking about who is correct. As for your other comment: yes, Hoppe's epistemological points are Kantian. However, I think Kant would say the example I gave is synthetic because Kant believed we have an a priori intuition of space, which that statement presupposes.
but due to quantum theory, all physical things don't have exact precise borders, every particle has a certain extend as it is present not only in 1 place at the same time. Because of this, you can't even have exactly straight line-shaped things.
@IvanTheHeathen
From the standpoint of logical positivism, you are correct, it would be considered analytic, not synthetic.
Our theories should be based in theory. Seems rather appropriate don't you think?
That's not what quantum mechanics states. You're thinking of quantum superposition, which is a statistical uncertainty as to what states a particle can occupy. All possible states are realized in the multiverse, but each state in its own universe. For more on this, see David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997). Prof. Deutsch is the inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device.
To make economic statements, 1 should make mathematical models translatable to and falsifiable by reality, and not mere single hypothesises testing, I agree with the author on that. The mathematics of these models themselves are purely analytic, even though one needs to interpret the results of the model in the context of reality.
person B always just means the person B, and not a group.
if _person A_ (is part of the friends of) _person B_
and _person B_ (is part of the friends of) _person C_,
then _person A_ (is part of the friends of) _person C_ or not _person A_ (is part of the friends of) _person C_.
(is part of the friends of) is an intransitive relation between 2 elements of the same type _person_.
>There is more to life than meets the eye.
I think this is true. There are all kinds of abstract structural and informational concepts in reality, even though these concepts do not physically exist.
You are right that a geodesic refers to the shortest path between 2 points on a surface.
According to general relativity, space-time is also a surface(of a higher dimensional space-time) that can be curved(gravitational field) itself under the influence of mass-energy, so the overall shortest distance between 2 points in space-time is a geodesic too and not a line(if some mass-energy is actually present).
And what do you mean by "behavioral patterns of quantum particles"?
@synestheticmonotony We're talking about two different statements here. The first is that in Euclidean geometry some properties hold, such as the shortest distance between two points is a line. The second is that Euclidean geometry describes reality. The first is an a priori statement, not empirical at all. The second is an empirical statement, not a priori at all. That Euclidean geometry doesn't actually describe the real world is besides the point. You're right, we may substitute Minkowski.
2)
20:37
> "A straight line is the shortest distance between 2 points"
this is true in some mathematical spaces, but this is not a scientific hypothesis, because it isn't scientific, because neither of both terms "straight line" and "point" are real world objects: they are transcendental concepts: those are required to grasp the real world in the first place, even though they themselves are imaginary and not part of the real world.
@05121784 your comment has more to do with Rand being wrong in her methodology rather than Hoppe not being Kantian influenced. Hoppe was a student of Jurgen Habermas who resonated strongly with neo-kantian epistemology. Hoppe was a marxist then, but was converted to capitalism by Friedman, but he still held strongly to the methodology taught by Habermas. He found Mises and he was then satisfied.
I don't claim that person B both represents a person and a group. All I claim about person B is that person B has friends
not taking into account effects on semi-transparent or more complex materials.
4)
21:56
> "If A is part of B, and B is part of C,
> than A is part of C also"
> A real statement about real things
This is true for transitive relations, but not every relation is transitive. There are counterexamples in both math and real world:
if person A is part of the group of frinds of person B and person B is part of the group of friends of person C, than person A is not necessarily part of the group of friends of C.
There are real things that have an approximated shape of a point or a straight line, but the concepts themselves don't exist as real things.
Acording to Immanuel Kant, space is a category that must be known a priori to any sensation in order to perceive it spatially. This category is neither sensational nor purely analytic(because it's required to grasp some sensations), so it builds a bridge between the 2 - transcendental.
And I guess a straight line and a point are subcategories of space.
@synestheticmonotony I'm not sure I understand this question or your earlier question about curves or vectors. Minkowski provided a mathematical formalism for Einstein's special theory of relativity. His famous quote is "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." Consult wikipedia for the precise details about it.
The statements he gives as examples he claims are proof of the error of the Logical Positivists are in fact definitions. And it is true that any definition is as good as another - but only when they are first made! We as humans don't determine the validity of definitions, Nature and the market interaction does. This is called natural selection. The successful definition maintains itself in the lexicon by right of survival, not reason, nor empirical verification. Logical Positivism is correct.
Though I am sympathetic to Hoppe's overall point, I consider some of the examples he gives of statements that are true a priori (require no experience/testing) and are synthetic (describe the real world) to be weak and improper. Take, for example, "No object can be both completely red and completely blue at the same time." Though this may describe objects in the real world, that does not make the statement synthetic. Is not the truth of that statement implied in the definition of "completely"?
@IvanTheHeathen
From reading Hoppe's "Economic Science and the Austrian Method," it seems his praxeological method is highly influenced by Kant. From a Kantian perspective, synthetic a priori propositions are where the predicate concept is not contained in the subject concept. According Kant, it would be neither synthetic or analytic.
The definition of "describes the real world" is more similar to Quinne's definition in "Two Dogmas of Empiricism."
If you have as yet to perceive a certain John Smith in Cincinnati, it does not posit that he does exist physically either.
@synestheticmonotony Hi, this is probably an inappropriate place to get into an extended discussion of physics.
this presentation is just illuminating
BRAVO
@jaeLAX23 how did you come by this information? did you arrive at it by a priori reasoning or by empiricism?
@afaultytoaster Why do you feel you can?
Matter has both particle & wave-like properties, but electrons have more wave-like character than particle character which allow electrons to behave this way. You and I cannot be in two places at once.
Empirical evidences need constants! Are Human rational individual constants? You cannot calculate or build a rational hypothesis on an ever changing, subjective person. That was quite evident until the 50s. I believe we should return to that tradition in the field of economics.
I agree with everything the guy in the video said in the beginning and I even arrive to the same conclusions at the end, but I disagree with most thing he stated in the middle of the video.
There are several logical and definitional problems. I'll try to sum them up.
> And nonetheless we have recognized something
> that is true, about a real phenomena.
This claimed real phenomena is actually false, because a regular object, which is made out of bosons(if you strip all electrons), can be at the same location than some other one(within the constraints of the uncertainty principle). So, this actually is a scientific hypothesis which actually got falsified by experiments, namely by the existences and properties of lasers, super conductivity and super fluidity.
I appreciate HHH very much as an anarchist. Unfortunately, when he starts to talk about Popper, he is almost completely wrong.
I'm a little unhappy with your definition of the term "analytical statement" that states that analytical statements are just definitions.
While I agree that every analytical statement depends on definitions, which are essential, they may also be statements derived from definitions.
WOW he is tackling perhaps the toughest question around. Does objective knowledge exist? Necessarily, if one answers no to this question, you destroy all existence. Think about it...for a while. Similar to the classic, "if a tree falls in the middle of a forest". Question, For those subjectivists or positivists ... I'll ask this ... Does human life require sustenance?
What IS relevant is that his statement can be reduced to a tautology. That is, it is, indeed, an axiomatic statement, and doesn't say anything more about the world than the statement All bachelors are male. Same thing with "no two straight lines can enclose a space" - this is a statement which can be reduced to a mathematical proof. It's, in his terms, "definitional"
@echatav thank you, I was about to say the exact same thing but you said it better.
@afaultytoaster Anyone who's taken at the very least a serious high school physics class knows this. It's also in your 2nd semester college physics course ;D
If, by "empirical evidence" you mean things like "utiles" which attempt to give precise, quantitative values to things... the flaws in such empiricism are abounds. Preferences and values, in reality, are ordinal in nature. You don't want object X 6.25 more utiles than object Y and 24.6 utiles more than object Z, etc. You like X, Y and Z inordinate to each other.
It isn't about "logic" so much as it's about unpredictable human action. Empiricism always fails to account for praxeology.
his attack on the logical positivists isn't justified by his examples, in which he states relations between things that are properties of the objects/things. So when he says no thing can be in two places at once - it is built into the 'definition' of any single thing that it resides on one place. That is why they are self-evident. They are not empirical statements. All of his examples are like this.
For a description of his errors see ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/againstCertainty.pdf
Such as?
Absolutely nothing about Hoppe's presentation can be attributed to Kant. Precisely the opposite. Hoppe merely illustrates that we are able acquire knowledge through reasoning. Kant is the evil opponent of reasoning. Ayn Rand has written beautifully to inform.
2. I pressed enter too quickly. It might be sensible to uphold the statements but that is only so through a process of induction.
1)
20:08
> "No 2 objects can occupy the same place."
> I would claim this says something about
> the real world; it is not just a definition.
true
> Nonetheless, is this a hypothesis? What strikes me,
> this is suretainly not a hypothesis.
actually, it is, and a false one on top of that.
Chances are that you get wrong results(like the keynesian), than your model doesn't describe reality well enough or your input data is wrong, but that's NEVER the fault of mathematics. In the case of the keynesians, I think they screwed up their models and neglected necessary perceptions.
@jaeLAX23 that's right, empiricism
@CytherLynx Keynsian economics is not economics at all.
yes but in the realm of physics, which we can actually observe with our eyes, we have to assume it is true.
why do austrians feel they are qualified to make pronouncements about areas of academia far outside their own expertise? 20:00 he says that matter can't be in two places at once. the double-slit experiment proves him wrong.
Well, someone had to say it. Especially, since everyone seems to forget Marx said it first. ;-)
Good day to you, sir.
I do not understand his examples. For instance, he refers to a number of statements about Euclidean geometry as being about the real world and being obviously true. They are true statements in Euclidean geometry. But, that Euclidean geometry describes reality is still an empirical statement, no? In fact, it's false! Locally, spacetime is described by flat Minkowski geometry, and globally it's curved!
I disagree respectfully! To begin with, what is a science? And what is a scientific method? It is impossible to "test" or establish economic principles when you are dealing with subjective human actions and choices. The problems with keynesians and other schools of economics is that they tend to ignore the center point of all economic activities. That's the individual, the consumer! Understanding the individual actions are the best way to establish economics laws! That's why I love Austrians!!
popperism is popular
Following on from AFRIKTODAY, there is no such thing as utiles in Austrian economics because there are no constants in human, subjective value.
You may have 10 apples, Today you decided to eat the first, bake the second two and then trade the rest for oranges.
tomorrow you decided to do something else with your 10 apples(my examples) You can give your values numbers, but only an order. Its margianl value. This video watch?v=DFe-PRKud5g
Followed by watch?v=h36Dni1ZPX0
Should esplain it
That was delicious.
>Straight lines and points DO exist physically.
I seriously don't believe this, and I can't neither prove nor disprove it.
I dont have time to inform myself because I have high time preference ;)
Quantum physics isn't relevant when it comes to economic decisions of individuals
The assertion of the a priori nature of economics is embarrassing to a empiricist libertarian as myself. The statements made are not tautologies, the denial of which are not self-contradictory. The statements aren't necessary. They are not laws of thought but require some sense data to establish. It might be, and often is, sensible to uphold the state
Sounds to me like praxeology is mostly about avoiding work.