[I] love Hoppe’s speech on good and bad economics. And regardless of my criticism of deductivism (a priorism) when economics is in fact, entirely empirical (not positivist, but empirical), I agree with him that economics doesn’t have ‘flavors’ but instead either makes true, internally consistent, and externally correspondent statements, or it does not. Worse, bad economics create bad behavior and bad economic conditions. Now, philosophy is the same. While the discipline of philosophy attracts people who prefer many different FLAVORS of philosophy, the fact is that philosophy is either GOOD or it is BAD. In the sense that it is either TRUE and correspondent with reality, and encourages us to act in correspondence with reality, or it is FALSE and does not encourage us to act in correspondence with reality. Now since philosophy consists of suites of statements, it’s possible for some philosophies to, as sets produce mixed goods and bads. But it is also possible for philosophies to produce net bads, and net goods. In the end analysis, we will settle on one optimum philosophy. And that philosophy will be ‘the way’ (constructivism, intuitionism) which we now refer to as ‘the scientific method’. Not that it has much to do with science. It just arose from the discipline of science. There is good philosophy (Philosophical Constructivist Realism, and Moral Propertarian Realism) and there is bad philosophy: everything else.
Theme: Science
-
Good Economics and Bad Economics / Good Philosophy and Bad Philosophy
[I] love Hoppe’s speech on good and bad economics. And regardless of my criticism of deductivism (a priorism) when economics is in fact, entirely empirical (not positivist, but empirical), I agree with him that economics doesn’t have ‘flavors’ but instead either makes true, internally consistent, and externally correspondent statements, or it does not. Worse, bad economics create bad behavior and bad economic conditions. Now, philosophy is the same. While the discipline of philosophy attracts people who prefer many different FLAVORS of philosophy, the fact is that philosophy is either GOOD or it is BAD. In the sense that it is either TRUE and correspondent with reality, and encourages us to act in correspondence with reality, or it is FALSE and does not encourage us to act in correspondence with reality. Now since philosophy consists of suites of statements, it’s possible for some philosophies to, as sets produce mixed goods and bads. But it is also possible for philosophies to produce net bads, and net goods. In the end analysis, we will settle on one optimum philosophy. And that philosophy will be ‘the way’ (constructivism, intuitionism) which we now refer to as ‘the scientific method’. Not that it has much to do with science. It just arose from the discipline of science. There is good philosophy (Philosophical Constructivist Realism, and Moral Propertarian Realism) and there is bad philosophy: everything else.
-
All Law Is Theoretical, And All Laws Merely Theories
[W]hat we have learned about humans from the discipline of science is that we must always adhere to two rules, in articulating any theory, because ALL LAW is a theory, and is bound by the same constraints as scientific theory. Revision of law, is equally a revision of theory, bound by the same constraints as all theory. Those two rules are: — a) Calculability and; — b) Operational language. In the context of law, ‘Calculability’ is a property of Empiricism (observation) that refers to the necessity that all monetary actions are made visible – and therefore there is a prohibition on pooling and laundering data through the use of aggregates. This implication is vast, and applies to all laws in all circumstances. For example, taxes are pooled into general funds, and their use discretionary, rather than taxes (fees) are collected for the purpose of particular contracts, and when those contracts are complete the taxes (fees) expire. Cause and effect are broken. Laws are not contracts that expire. They must be. Otherwise they would be ‘incalculable’.
-
All Law Is Theoretical, And All Laws Merely Theories
[W]hat we have learned about humans from the discipline of science is that we must always adhere to two rules, in articulating any theory, because ALL LAW is a theory, and is bound by the same constraints as scientific theory. Revision of law, is equally a revision of theory, bound by the same constraints as all theory. Those two rules are: — a) Calculability and; — b) Operational language. In the context of law, ‘Calculability’ is a property of Empiricism (observation) that refers to the necessity that all monetary actions are made visible – and therefore there is a prohibition on pooling and laundering data through the use of aggregates. This implication is vast, and applies to all laws in all circumstances. For example, taxes are pooled into general funds, and their use discretionary, rather than taxes (fees) are collected for the purpose of particular contracts, and when those contracts are complete the taxes (fees) expire. Cause and effect are broken. Laws are not contracts that expire. They must be. Otherwise they would be ‘incalculable’.
-
Why Refer To Rotbardian and Misesian Libertarianism as Pseudoscience?
–“…why equate pseudoscience with hermeneutics, given hermeneutics is about textual interpretation? I didn’t follow that link.”– Davin Eastley
[P]recisely because the origin of pseudo science is religion. The origin of textual interpretation is religion. The purpose of interpretation is ‘to find something new here’. Jewish predisposition for, and frequent authorship of pseudoscience, is the result of textual ‘interpretation’, rather than scientific experimentation. It is not hard to overwhelm the human ability to reason with pseudoscience. It’s pretty easy really. Thats why religion works. The purpose of: 1) Operational language 2) Internal Consistency 3) External Correspondence 4) Verification and Falsification …is precisely to make sure that we do NOT overwhelm our very (feeble) ability to reason. The purpose of pseudoscience is specifically to overwhelm our ability to reason. [O]perational language reduces any statement to that which is open to direct experience. The purpose of external correspondence reduced to empirical data is to construct something that is open to logical analysis. Logical analysis is for the purpose of reducing something to logical experience. Verification is for the purpose of confirming that all this complexity accomplishes what it claims. Falsification is for the purpose of making sure that we haven’t erred in our claims. The reason the constitution was undermined, in no small part was the introduction of scriptural interpretation into law, which must be, in all circumstances, limited to a) original intent and b) strict constructionism, such that any modifications to the law are not made by judges but by the people’s representative body. The common law requests judges to appeal to the legislative body when there is some unanswered question that they think needs an answer. Had this been adhered to instead of subject to interpretation, then classical liberalism (freedom) would have held until the population mandated the change, rather than the court mandating the change.
-
Why Refer To Rotbardian and Misesian Libertarianism as Pseudoscience?
–“…why equate pseudoscience with hermeneutics, given hermeneutics is about textual interpretation? I didn’t follow that link.”– Davin Eastley
[P]recisely because the origin of pseudo science is religion. The origin of textual interpretation is religion. The purpose of interpretation is ‘to find something new here’. Jewish predisposition for, and frequent authorship of pseudoscience, is the result of textual ‘interpretation’, rather than scientific experimentation. It is not hard to overwhelm the human ability to reason with pseudoscience. It’s pretty easy really. Thats why religion works. The purpose of: 1) Operational language 2) Internal Consistency 3) External Correspondence 4) Verification and Falsification …is precisely to make sure that we do NOT overwhelm our very (feeble) ability to reason. The purpose of pseudoscience is specifically to overwhelm our ability to reason. [O]perational language reduces any statement to that which is open to direct experience. The purpose of external correspondence reduced to empirical data is to construct something that is open to logical analysis. Logical analysis is for the purpose of reducing something to logical experience. Verification is for the purpose of confirming that all this complexity accomplishes what it claims. Falsification is for the purpose of making sure that we haven’t erred in our claims. The reason the constitution was undermined, in no small part was the introduction of scriptural interpretation into law, which must be, in all circumstances, limited to a) original intent and b) strict constructionism, such that any modifications to the law are not made by judges but by the people’s representative body. The common law requests judges to appeal to the legislative body when there is some unanswered question that they think needs an answer. Had this been adhered to instead of subject to interpretation, then classical liberalism (freedom) would have held until the population mandated the change, rather than the court mandating the change.
-
WHY PSEUDOSCIENCE? –“…why equate pseudoscience with hermeneutics, given herme
WHY PSEUDOSCIENCE?
–“…why equate pseudoscience with hermeneutics, given hermeneutics is about textual interpretation? I didn’t follow that link.”– Davin Eastley
Precisely because the origin of pseudo science is religion.
The origin of textual interpretation is religion.
The purpose of interpretation is ‘to find something new here’.
Jewish predisposition for, and frequent authorship of pseudoscience is the result of textual ‘interpretation’, rather than scientific experimentation.
It is not hard to overwhelm the human ability to reason with pseudoscience. It’s pretty easy really. Thats why religion works.
The purpose of:
1) Operational language
2) Internal Consistency
3) External Correspondence
4) Verification and Falsification
…is precisely to make sure that we do NOT overwhelm our very (feeble) ability to reason. The purpose of pseudoscience is specifically to overwhelm our ability to reason.
Operational language reduces any statement to that which is open to direct experience. The purpose of external correspondence reduced to empirical data is to construct something that is open to logical analysis. Logical analysis is for the purpose of reducing something to logical experience. Verification is for the purpose of confirming that all this complexity accomplishes what it claims. Falsification is for the purpose of making sure that we haven’t erred in our claims.
The reason the constitution was undermined, in no small part was the introduction of scriptural interpretation into law, which must be, in all circumstances, limited to a) original intent and b) strict constructionism, such that any modifications to the law are not made by judges but by the people’s representative body.
The common law requests judges to appeal to the legislative body when there is some unanswered question that they think needs an answer. Had this been adhered to instead of subject to interpretation, then classical liberalism (freedom) would have held until the population mandated the change, rather than the court mandating the change.
Thanks for the great question. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-07 08:45:00 UTC
-
THE FUTURE OF ECONOMICS AND COOPERATIVE SCIENCE (interesting) I doubt that econo
THE FUTURE OF ECONOMICS AND COOPERATIVE SCIENCE
(interesting)
I doubt that economics will ever evolve to be predictive, since we would adapt to any prediction. I do not doubt that economics will evolve to be almost universally descriptive. or at least sufficiently so that further inquiry won’t provide additional knowledge about mankind and human behavior.
I **DO** believe that we can construct a science of COOPERATION instead of a science of ‘economics’. I think this categorization of cooperation as economic has taken root, and it may be impossible to fix at this point. However, the study of economic activity is the use of easily recorded economic data to capture the demonstrated behavior and preferences of human beings better than any other form of test can possibly do.
But the science we are constructing through economics, cognitive science, and experimental psychology, is the the science of COOPERATION.
That science, for all intents and purposes has yielded, and will yield, only one fundamental set of principles. And that single fundamental set of principles will undoubtably be categorized as what we USED to call, “POLITICAL ECONOMY”.
Because all human cooperation requires institutions that facilitate organization of invention, production, distribution and consumption by voluntary means, while at the same time prohibiting free riding in all it’s forms: criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial and conquest.
As such, the science of cooperation, including:
a) The formal logic of human organization (reproduction/family/production)
b) The formal logic of ethics (voluntary exchange)
c) The formal logic of cooperation ( law, contract)
d) The formal logic of institutions. (commons via extra-market exchange)
The major shifts will be:
a) the abandonment of universalism and the universalizabiltiy of morals.
b) abandonment of majoritarianism in favor of government of exchanges.
c) The adoption of the Austrian theory of the business cycle as preservation of the integrity of monetary information.
d) The adoption of Propertarian constraints on political argument and action.
d) The segmentation of economics into the study of policy across specific time spectra.
e) Abandonment of employment as the objective of policy, and instead the emphasis on the productivity of human capital, and the development of employment into a preference for increasing one’s standard of living.
f) Abandonment of open immigration.
g) Adoption of Self Determination as a human right.
I do not know if we can obtain secession without using violence. However, we can popularize and probably enforce nullification such that secession is not as necessary as it is today.
(More to come)
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 11:57:00 UTC
-
GOOD ECONOMICS AND BAD ECONOMICS / GOOD PHILOSOPHY AND BAD PHILOSOPHY I love Hop
GOOD ECONOMICS AND BAD ECONOMICS / GOOD PHILOSOPHY AND BAD PHILOSOPHY
I love Hoppe’s speech on good and bad economics. And regardless of my criticism of deductivism (a priorism) when economics is in fact, entirely empirical (not positivist, but empirical), I agree with him that economics doesn’t have ‘flavors’ but instead either makes true, internally consistent, and externally correspondent statements, or it does not. Worse, bad economics create bad behavior and bad economic conditions.
Now, philosophy is the same. While the discipline of philosophy attracts people who prefer many different FLAVORS of philosophy, the fact is that philosophy is either GOOD or it is BAD. In the sense that it is either TRUE and correspondent with reality, and encourages us to act in correspondence with reality, or it is FALSE and does not encourage us to act in correspondence with reality.
Now since philosophy consists of suites of statements, it’s possible for some philosophies to, as sets produce mixed goods and bads. But it is also possible for philosophies to produce net bads, and net goods.
In the end analysis, we will settle on one optimum philosophy. And that philosophy will be ‘the way’ (constructivism, intuitionism) which we now refer to as ‘the scientific method’.
Not that it has much to do with science. It just arose from the discipline of science.
There is good philosophy (Philosophical Constructivist Realism, and Moral Propertarian Realism) and there is bad philosophy: everything else.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-03 08:33:00 UTC
-
THE SCIENCE OF HUMAN ACTION IS PURELY EMPIRICAL The logic of human action is not
THE SCIENCE OF HUMAN ACTION IS PURELY EMPIRICAL
The logic of human action is not deductive. The logic of human action, including the discipline of economics, is entirely empirical. Empirical meaning ‘observable’.
The canons of science require that we use instrumentation and logic to reduce that which we cannot sense to analogy to experience; that we test what we cannot perceive for internal consistency and external correspondence.
But, we can test the rationality of incentives directly by pure perception. Our perception of voluntary exchange, involuntary exchange, and the satisfaction of wants is in itself the most reductive form of perception: we can both sense the rationality of incentives in relation to any change in state, and we can test the rationality of the incentives of others as well – because human incentives are marginally indifferent – at least outside of taste. Even then we can distinguish between rational tastes and non.
As such, the logic of human action is constructed from, as all knowledge of truth is, empirical observation.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-03 05:19:00 UTC