Theme: Science

  • ANYONE KNOW IF THE ARGUMENT THAT EINSTEIN WAS A NOT THE IDEATOR HAS ANY MERIT? (

    ANYONE KNOW IF THE ARGUMENT THAT EINSTEIN WAS A NOT THE IDEATOR HAS ANY MERIT?

    (I have a legit reason for asking.)

    See this narrative.

    ————-

    “The curious fact about Mr. Einstein is that his early teachers were probably correct: they did not view him as particularly bright. When Einstein (on his second attempt) managed to finally enter the Swiss Polytechnic school in Zurich, the young 17 year old quickly realized he was in way over his head. He was extremely quick to glom on to Mileva Maric, a brilliant Serbian student, who was the only woman studying physics at the Swiss Polytechnic (“ETH”) the entire time Einstein was there. Maric was four years Einstein’s senior. She was a Serb, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, short of stature, had a limp and was extremely bookish. In addition to taking the exact same course-work in college that Einstein took, and living together with him, sharing textbooks, etc., Maric studied on her own for one semester in Germany under Phillipe Lenard, the Nobel Prize winning physicist who discovered the photo-electric effect (which was explained in one of the 1905 papers attributed to Einstein).

    She was also absolutely hated by Einstein’s mother, Pauline. Still, despite his mother’s fierce objections, Einstein stubbornly went ahead and married her. It was during this marriage that Einstein is credited with producing the 1905 papers which made him famous. All this is detailed in the Love Letters. Further, I suggest you read TIME magazine, April 30, 1990, and the essay by Dennis Overbye “Einstein in Love.” This essay refers, without giving attribution, to the work of Dr. Evan Harris Walker and the linguist, Senta Troemmel-Ploetz. If you can find their work anywhere, it is truly an eye-opener.

    Prior to their marriage, Mileva Maric gave birth out of wedlock to Lieserl, the only biological daughter of Albert Einstein. Nobody really knows what happened to this child; there is a mention in one of the letters to her having scarlet fever and it is believed that the child was put up for adoption in Serbia. Albert never breathed a word about her publicly during his life-time (which, personally, I find rather strange).

    Mileva faced the obvious invidious prejudice of being a woman. Remember, in 1900 women couldn’t even vote! Although her grades were comparable to Einstein, Mileva ultimately did not pass her final examinations. It must be noted, however, that at the time she was taking these exams she was late in her pregnancy with Albert’s second child (his son, Hans Albert) and also faced the prejudice of her teachers for being both a Slav and a woman. She was, indeed, the only student in Albert’s class not to graduate, although she did receive a research position with Professor Weber, which later fell through. Of the students who did actually graduate, Einstein had the lowest grade point average.

    But did Albert Einstein—the same man his teachers thought lazy, the same man who after graduating from the ETH could not find a job in physics and was ultimately forced to work for ten years as a lowly patent clerk — really formulate all by himself the great works in 1905 for which he is credited? Or did his wife, who struggled against the obvious prejudice of being a woman studying science during a highly “male chauvanistic” era, and the added prejudice of being a Slav in Switzerland, collaborate with Einstein?

    The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein prove to any open-minded person, that Maric did indeed collaborate on the authorship of Einstein’s famous papers in 1905. Einstein even uses the word “collaboration”. Just a random sample quote from Albert to Mileva (published also in the Love Letters):

    “How happy and proud I will be when the two of us together will have brought our work on the relative motion to a victorious conclusion!” Our work??? This is just one isolated quotation. Should you read the entire Love Letters you will find that Albert shares all his physics ideas with her and is extremely interested in her opinion. There are literally dozens of examples. See the copyrighted manuscript by Evan Harris Walker “Ms. Einstein”. There is also a book by Ann Gabor called, “Mrs. Einstein” which essentially parrots Dr. Walker’s work but fails to give him any attribution.

    Senta Troemmel Ploetz, in her excellent paper, “Mileva Maric-Einstein: The Woman who did Einstein’s Mathematics” quotes from a Serbian biography of Maric, that Einstein himself once told his friends that his wife did his math for him. When one realizes the highly mathematical aspect of the 1905 Special Relativity paper, which relies heavily on derivations of the Lorentz transformations, then one can see the importance of having a first-rate mathematician’s help. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein even have a photo-static copy of one of Albert’s college notebooks, in which Mileva has gone through and corrected Albert’s math! Yet the myth of the isolated Einstein working alone, who all by himself, without help from anyone, wrote four brilliant papers on physics in 1905, endures. No two physicists ever had a closer relationship: Mileva and Albert ate together, went to school together, shared ideas together, shared textbooks together, slept together, raised children together, and yet the “Einstein Establishment” refuses to acknowledge her as a collaborator in any way whatsoever.

    Naturally, the original manuscript for the Special Relativity paper is missing. It was lost during Einstein’s lifetime. Yet, Abram Joffe, a summa cum laude Russian physicist is quoted as having seen the original 1905 manuscript and said it was signed, “Einstein-Marity” (Marity being the Hungarianized version of Maric’; at that time Serbia was under the dominion of Austro-Hungarian empire). Joffe died in 1961. See op cited TIME (April 30, 1990).

    Moreover, when Albert admitted adultery and divorced Mileva in 1919, he promised that in the event he should win the Nobel Prize all the money – not part of the money but all the money – would go to Mileva. According to the Einstein biography, “Subtle is the Lord” by Abram Pais, Einstein kept his promise. When he received the Nobel Prize money in 1922 (he was awarded the prize for the year 1921; the award was announced and he received the money in 1922) Albert did indeed give Mileva all the money from the Nobel Prize. Why all the money?

    Then I must also mention Olinto De Pretto. Albert Einstein was quite fluent in Italian. According to the already cited Pais biography, when Einstein graduated from high school in Aarau he was required to take exams in both the German language and the Italian language. Out of a maximum score of 6, Einstein received a score of 5 in German (his native tongue) and also a score of 5 in Italian! Of course, Einstein had lived in Italy during his youth, and Einstein’s father is buried in Milan. Further, during the very same “anno mirabilis” of 1905, when Einstein published his famous four physics papers in the Annalen der Physik, he also published in the very same Annalen der Physik two reviews of articles written in Italian by Italian physicists. Again, these were reviews of articles written in Italian and were published in the Annalen der Physik in 1905, which shows that Einstein was reading rather deeply the Italian literature in physics at the time. Moreover, Michele Besso, the only person credited in the famous E=mc^2 paper of 1905, was originally from the Veneto region of Italy; his native tongue was Italian. Also, in order for Einstein to gain Swiss citizenship (a requirement for him to work in the Berne patent office since that was a government job) it could only help him if he could show proficiency in Italian, which, along with German and French, is one of the three official languages of Switzerland. Finally, there are still extant postcards written by Einstein in Italian as well as living Italians who spoke to Einstein in his later years who attest to his fluency. There is no doubt that Einstein spoke Italian well.

    Why do I emphasize Einstein’s fluency in Italian? Because another native of the Veneto region, an industrialist named Olinto De Pretto, had published an article in which De Pretto gave, in its final form, the equation E=mc^2. This article was published in 1903 and published again in 1904; preceding Einstein’s 1905 “E=mc^2” paper by at least a year-and-a-half. Dr. Umberto Bartocci, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Perugia, in his book, “Albert Einstein e Olinto De Pretto: la vera storia della formula piu’ famosa del mondo” (Albert Einstein and Olinto De Pretto, the true history of the most famous formula in the world) has published De Pretto’s article in full. In the article, De Pretto actually comments on how amazing his discovery is. That is a kilogram of any material there is within an extraordinary explosion of energy. De Pretto articulated the formula quite well and realized its significance. This formula, of course, would later be the theoretical basis for the atomic bomb. Throughout all of the famous papers on 1905, Einstein gives no sources or citations. The only credit given to anyone is a brief mention of his friend Michele Besso. Why the lack of citation of any source material?

    Dr. Bartocci has made a link between Michele Besso and Olinto De Pretto; however, nobody can absolutely prove that Einstein saw De Pretto’s article. Yet based on the Besso link with the De Pretto article, and also that Einstein was well aware of other groundbreaking work by Italian physicists (having read deeply the Italian physics literature), it would seem difficult to deny that Einstein was aware of the De Pretto article. Indeed, when Einstein did publish his famous article in 1905 wherein he gave a variation of the famed “E=mc^2” formula, he titled this “discovery” in the form of a question. Perhaps he was not quite sure of its significance or perhaps he wanted the title in the form of a question in order to later attribute it to someone else should the formula prove incorrect.

    What is absolutely indisputable is that the formula was published, not once but twice, in the Italian physics literature. Its authorship should rightly be credited to the industrialist, Olinto De Pretto.

    Recently published letters written by Einstein (see The Collected Papers of A. Einstein) reveal him to be far less than a saintly figure in his personal life. His first wife, Mileva Maric, for whom he had originally professed such great love, he treated cruelly toward the end of the marriage, even calling her “uncommonly ugly”. He admitted in a deposition during divorce proceedings (28 December 1918) that he had carried on an adulterous relationship with one of his cousins, whom he later married. During this second marriage, Einstein had numerous affairs, even – apparently — including an affair with a Russian spy! And again, Einstein never breathed a word about having fathered a daughter with Maric.

    The “Einstein myth” has become so ingrained in popular thought that many of the current generations will be loath to part with it. It does make a terrific story: a student whom his teachers thought would not amount to anything, a sloppy dresser who abhored wearing socks or even neatly combing his hair, should later be revealed to be the greatest scientist of all time. A solitary genius who without any significant help from anybody, re-arranged the universe. Like most fine stories that sound too good to be true, the “Einstein myth” is really too good to be true. The Nobel Prize winning chemist Linus Pauling once said (on a completely unrelated topic) that it takes a generation before people will accept a truly new idea. Current generations, weaned on the “Einstein myth” will not bear to part with it. Women and men of newer generations, not weaned on the myth, willing to investigate the evidence for themselves, and not wedded to any ideology or point of view, will approach the issue of Einstein’s authorship of the Special Theory of Relativity and the formula “E=mc^2″ with fresh eyes. I ask only that the reader keep an open mind.”


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-26 06:28:00 UTC

  • SARCASTIC INVITATION TO COMMENT “Please use the comments to demonstrate your own

    SARCASTIC INVITATION TO COMMENT

    “Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.”

    Where do people come up with this? 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-25 07:01:00 UTC

  • WHEN SUBJECTIVE TESTING IS OBJECTIVE Using the methods of science we reduce phen

    WHEN SUBJECTIVE TESTING IS OBJECTIVE

    Using the methods of science we reduce phenomenon to something we can experience, and test. I don’t like that we describe these processes as apodictically certain. But it is irrational to state that I can use science to reduce something beyond experience to experience, so that I can interpret it, but on the other hand, suggest that sympathetic interpretation of incentives is less ‘scientific’. It’s just as scientific as anything else, because human cognitive biases are reasonably universal, and need to be INCLUDED in any such analysis of human behavior – not excluded from it. That’s not logical either.

    (Excerpt from longer post.)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-24 07:41:00 UTC

  • MORE ON BOETTKE’S HYPOTHESIS (AND CAPLAN’S CRITICISM OF HOROWITZ) : WHY AUSTRIAN

    MORE ON BOETTKE’S HYPOTHESIS (AND CAPLAN’S CRITICISM OF HOROWITZ) : WHY AUSTRIANS ARE’T MAINSTREAM

    Caplan has it correct in his own odd way, as usual. Then he proceeds, as he does with ‘Why I’m not an Austrian’ to contradict himself with the same kind of logical problem he accuses others of making. (In the most famous case, that incentives are more important than calculation. And failing to realize that such a statement is meaningless, since incentives require calculation – the terms are mutually dependent.)

    BARRIER TO ENTRY

    The barrier to entry for quantitative macro economics is higher than the barrier to entry for subjective MORAL politics. Because of this, of course there will be more ridiculous ‘austrian’ advocates than there are ridiculous amoral quantitative macro economists like Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong. And its easier to criticize abuse of an ISLM vs ISMP curves because there isn’t any subjective loading possible. They aren’t’ dependent upon norms. Whereas it’s very easy to criticize abuse of involuntary transfers according to whatever set of norms we have learned over our lifetimes.

    PRAXEOLOGY

    I’ve consistently criticized Praxeology – which is a narrower discipline than austrian economics, because it does not treat opportunity costs as real costs, and as such, both Mises’ and rothbard’s deductions from it are mistaken – because they do not account for the cost of norms, and as such, they assume that the market is sufficient for the constraint of norms – or at least sufficient to constrain norms to the point where private property is possible because of high trust. And Mises and Rothbard are wrong on this. And because they are wrong, the entire libertarian movement has tried to base the justification for private property on natural law, argumentation, and abstract morality rather than something scientific and explanatory of all moral codes – as I have done.

    NORMS, TRADITIONS AND TRUST AS CAPITAL

    I don’t put a lot of stock in Austrian ‘Economics’ because it’s frankly all been assimilated by the profession. It’s that the long term consequences to norms and institutions have NOT been incorporated into the mainstream profession, and are treated as irrelevant. While in Austrian terms, norms are not – particularly if we include Hayek.

    It turns out that norms are VERY important. They are the most expensive kind of capital a nation can build. Norms are a living monument. Thats’ why younger civilizations with less scientific maturity have trouble creating them.

    So I tend not to make Austrian versus the Mainstream a question of empirical science, but a distinction in WHAT MUST BE MEASURED in order to make sure that we are in fact creating rather than consuming or destroying capital. This is not an argument over method per se. The progress in the empirical method, do more to the contribution of Experimental Psychology than to economics in my opinion.

    I criticize the mainstream for not measuring changes to normative (informal capital) because it is convenient to ignore it, and by ignoring it they justify both the progressive and statist agenda.

    The problem is that it is very difficult to measure such changes to norms, traditions, and other factors that we tend to bundle into the abstract but somewhat measurable distinction between TRUST and CORRUPTION. Or, what is more accurately described as the extension of the familial (kinship) trust, to others (non-kin) by the suppression of all involuntary transfers except market competition, and the systemic enforcement of warranty to prevent fraud by omission.

    GENES AS CAPITAL

    As a member of the ‘Dark Enlightenment’, I consider a gene pool a form of capital. I also think that Austrianism, like Aristocracy (and what we call Conservatism) implicitly favors beneficial market-based eugenics, while progressivism implicitly favors destructive dysgenics by not allowing families to concentrate capital behind productive genes, and transferring reproductive ability from better genes to worse genes.

    SUMMARY

    So Austrianism is flawed because it has a low barrier to entry, because praxeology as articulated is false, and has led libertarianism into catastrophic errors even Hoppe has only marginally been able to rescue it from.

    But Austrianism is useful in that it a) allows us to test the rationality of actions and incentives, b) makes visible involuntary transfers c) tries to account for increases or decreases in informal institutional capital d) implicitly represents the conflict between dysgenic and eugenic reproduction that is the natural conflict between male and female reproductive strategies. And as such Austrianism helps us understand why there is political discord, and provides us with clues, that I have made use of, to provide explanatory power in politics, that is not provided by correlative macro mathematics.

    —————–

    (For Reference)

    —————–

    BOETTKE’S HYPOTHESIS WHY AUSTRIANS ARE NOT MAINSTREAM

    “Verbal logic is not adequate to explain economic relationships. In the absence of formal logic, one cannot really test propositions. In other words, syntactic logic matters more than semantic logic.” (Hypothesis H4)

    AND

    “Science is not about absolutes, but about refutation. If AE is about (apodictic) certainty, then it is not a science, but a pastime.” (Hypothesis H5)

    Well I disagree with AE as apodictic unless it’s complete. As I’ve written elsewhere it’s not complete. However, if expressed as complete, then it’s possible to propose means of falsification. And “m not sure it isn’t possible to model. Just very, very difficult, because we need much, much more data than we have today. Tis is where experimental psychology comes in.

    In this sense, AE has a higher bar, because it tries to provide greater explanatory power than mainstream economics.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-24 07:03:00 UTC

  • CANTORS PROOF? I hope this isnt a stupid question. Can someone explain to me why

    CANTORS PROOF?

    I hope this isnt a stupid question.

    Can someone explain to me why cantor’s infinity isnt trivial? Im not the only person in the world who thinks this. But as far as i can tell whether you adopt finitism or infinity is pragmatic utility not truth. And if you dig into Godel, Cantor or ZFC, its platonic and does not represent except loosely, language and science.

    Arent we just extrapolating the platonic to the real? Isnt that an error? If thats true then gods exist too in the same form as mathematical objects. And if thats the case there is no discipline of science as we understsnd it.

    All that exists are real numbers. Everything else is platonic.

    The constraint that we place upon our theories is needed to compensate for observability, cognitive limits – mostly to short term

    Memory – and for cognitive biases.

    That we should avt as if our theories are unbounded is not because they are unbounded, it is because its useful to limit error.

    I have to keep working on this a bit.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-24 05:00:00 UTC

  • THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THE AUSTRIAN METHOD Science is useful in tw

    THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THE AUSTRIAN METHOD

    Science is useful in two dimensions: X) It allows us to sense what we cannot sense – by making the unobservable, observable by reducing those phenomenon to some form of analogy to experience. And Y) It helps us compensate for the unfortunate strength of our cognitive biases.

    The Austrian method asks us to use one of the methods of science, by describing any human behavior in OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE (in terms of human actions) and to SYMPATHIZE with each of those steps, and when in sympathy, to TEST whether each step meets the test of rational incentives. If it doesn’t there are two possible answers: the first being that ‘humans won’t do that, so that can’t be true’, and the second being ‘humans might do that but this will be the external consequence of it’.

    I don’t think there is any mystery to the Austrian method: it is another scientific process that allows us to test by sympathetic experiences, whether any give statement can be constructed as steps of human action, and where each step is subject to the scrutiny and test of rational incentives.

    Using the methods of science we reduce phenomenon to something we can experience, and test. I don’t like that we describe these processes as apodictically certain. But it is irrational to state that I can use science to reduce something beyond experience to experience, so that I can interpret it, but on the other hand, suggest that sympathetic interpretation of incentives is less ‘scientific’. It’s just as scientific as anything else, because human cognitive biases are reasonably universal, and need to be INCLUDED in any such analysis of human behavior – not excluded from it. That’s not logical either.

    I apologize to other Austrians for using somewhat different language, but there is a method to my madness: in trying to articulate what it is that we are doing in this particular way I hope to correct praxeology as Mises stated it and Rothbard, well, ruined it – if not in theory but in practice, as those ideas have spread with common use.

    Most of us in our field tend to contrast empirical evidence with tests of Austrian rationality. I think this is what separates us from other fields. We do not make deductions without bounding them by the theory of rational incentives. We are skeptical of everything. In particular, we have internalized as a scientific principle, the concept that hubris and cognitive bias are ever present challenges to our interpretations.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-23 14:17:00 UTC

  • BOETTKE’S HYPOTHESIS WHY AUSTRIANS ARE NOT MAINSTREAM “Verbal logic is not adequ

    BOETTKE’S HYPOTHESIS WHY AUSTRIANS ARE NOT MAINSTREAM

    “Verbal logic is not adequate to explain economic relationships. In the absence of formal logic, one cannot really test propositions. In other words, syntactic logic matters more than semantic logic.” (Hypothesis H4)

    AND

    “Science is not about absolutes, but about refutation. If AE is about (apodictic) certainty, then it is not a science, but a pastime.” (Hypothesis H5)

    Well I disagree with AE as apodictic unless it’s complete. As I’ve written elsewhere it’s not complete. However, if expressed as complete, then it’s possible to propose means of falsification. And “m not sure it isn’t possible to model. Just very, very difficult, because we need much, much more data than we have today. Tis is where experimental psychology comes in.

    In this sense, AE has a higher bar, because it tries to provide greater explanatory power than mainstream economics.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-23 11:17:00 UTC

  • NPOV: POSITIONING AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS VS MAINSTREAM ECONOMICS For you to consider

    NPOV: POSITIONING AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS VS MAINSTREAM ECONOMICS

    For you to consider yourself an Austrian in ECONOMIC theory, the minimum requirement is to subscribe to 1) the subjective theory of value, 2) the austrian theory of the business cycle and possibly 3) that money is non-neutral. That is all that would differentiate you from a mainstream economist.

    Mainstream economists TEND to argue that macro monetary policy is ‘above’ all of that:

    i) that the business cycle MAY be affected by the government, but that the net result is actually still better than it would be if we constrained the government.

    ii) The idea that we push problems down the road is fine, because in the progressive view, technology will save us in the future. (Really.)

    iii) that individual benefits are distributed by complex means, so that in the end, it all works our if they take your property and give it to someone else, and increase risk and government debt.

    iiii) Austrian economics is logical, but does not place an emphasis on the empirical, or at least, casts doubt on the empirical statements mainstream economists make. And since economics as a discipline is actually econometrics then this means you have no place in economics departments.

    You would CHOOSE to study Austrian economics only if you either have a) a moral objection to Keynesianism, or b) it violates your observation about human nature, or c) the externalities it will produce accumulate into even more serious problems than the business cycle. (That’s what libertarians argue.)

    The reason some of us tend to choose Austrian economics is because we have a political interest in the long term effects of policy on society. And because we think norms and institutions are not arbitrary. This category of questions is in the domain of POLITICAL ECONOMY, not really that of monetary economics. And as such, most of us would recommend that you study Austrian economics in the context of political science, or ethical philosophy, rather than monetary economics, and do so in support of a political science degree where first year macro and micro economics really are sufficient.

    GMU does teach Austrianism and their program is competitive, and their students are sought out precisely for that reason. The developing world, where corruption is a serious problem, also tends to have austrian influence, because it explains at least in part, why these countries remain poor: they don’t have property rights.

    The truth is that in our advanced countries, where we do have at least marginal property rights and limited corruption, Austrian principles are not as important as macro principles. So I think it is more that Austrianism is an early stage way of looking at the world, and once you’ve succeeded with institutions at the austrian level you can more easily make use of macro institutions without such substantially negative externalities. Although most dedicated Austrians (the ideological kind) might disagree with me, I kind of doubt that I’d lose the argument.) 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-22 16:13:00 UTC

  • ON FINITISM, PLATONISM, MEASUREMENT, SCIENCE (I have been working for the past f

    ON FINITISM, PLATONISM, MEASUREMENT, SCIENCE

    (I have been working for the past few weeks on the problem of what I see as platonism in libertarian theory, and am trying to correct that by basing political theory on science instead. This post from another group illustrates the direction I’m going.)

    Steven:

    Thank you for helping me with this.

    “But this wouldn’t entail anything about the infinity or non-infinity of reality, or of theories understood in the sense of Popper’s ‘objective knowledge’…”

    Of WHAT in reality? What measurement could I take in reality that was not finite in a finite period of time? Given change, the idea of infinity is not logical, since at any point state (a) vs state (b) no longer has any non-arbitrary meaning.

    As far as we know, any reality in which we can take action is geometric on actionable time scale.

    As far as we know, language, like mathematics can describe both the real and unreal, and given its ability to expand, it can indeed construct infinite names, descriptions, and statements. But likewise, as far as we know, this does not apply to measurements, which must meet the criteria of observability – hence bounded by time. What ‘real’ phenomenon can be expressed as a measurement that is infinite? I can’t think of any. And as far as I know, this applies forward and backward in time. If it didn’t physics wouldn’t be possible. Micro-scale actions, even in n-dimensional space, still equilibrate at any observable, measurable unit-size.

    Logic and mathematics also address this position in the FINITIST movement, and even Aristotle was, to some degree a Finitist. (I’ve read that Wittgenstein also was, but I haven’t spent enough time on him to judge for myself.)

    As far as I know, and as far as I can prove anyone knows, reality and measurement are ARITHMETIC, NOT MATHEMATIC.

    As far as I know, Mathematical and Logical constructs are platonic, while arithmetic are real.

    As far as I know there is very little that cannot be expressed in very basic real numbers. And that which can be is also platonic. And as far as I know, there is no measurable activity that cannot be expressed in Finitist terms.

    The problem of relative relations requires ratios (calculus) whenever we cannot produce a mechanical measurement (a complex fluid system for example), but the problem of geometric measures requires only natural numbers.

    My problem is not philosophy. The problem is mathematics. I just don’t know the field at this level although it’s pretty much intuitive to me. Philosophy departments are overwhelmingly platonic. It gives them something to do. Otherwise they’d have to focus on empirical problems like economists and physicists. 🙂

    But this position ties in with Matt’s statement on Koertge:

    why did popper have to invent this theory anyway? Because of morality of his time. Popper had to destroy certitude, not just in mathematics, but in politics, in order to undermine what was thought to be scientific socialism.

    From my perspective, mathematical platonism, physics as mysticism, and postmodernism, are all political biases that have invaded academia with marxist and freudian mysticism.

    Like Freidrich Hayek, I am fairly sure that this era will have been considered a new era of magianism ushered in by Marx and Freud, and the einsteinan revolution used by every possible academic department to claim psychological legitimacy by making relativistic claims. And in particular by liberal arts departments, envious of their replacement by physics and economics, as means to promote the secular religion of Postmodernism, which makes use of all of these platonic and magical properties.

    This may cross a bit too many different disciplines for this forum but I am fairly sure it is a correct analysis.

    As I’ve stated in another post, I think CR / Falsification is a defense against cognitive bias, and an attack on relativism, but I am not sure that it is in fact a statement about reality.

    Probably one of the more profound things discussed on FB today, I’m sure. 🙂

    Thanks for giving me an opportunity to test my thoughts by articulating them.

    Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-22 02:22:00 UTC

  • How Do Keynesians View Austrian Economics?

    GREAT QUESTION. I WILL TRY TO DO IT JUSTICE. BUT I HAVE TO GO BEYOND THE SCOPE OF YOUR QUESTION TO DO THAT.

    For you to consider yourself an Austrian in ECONOMIC theory, the minimum requirement is to subscribe to 1) the subjective theory of value, 2) the austrian theory of the business cycle and possibly 3) that money is non-neutral. That is all that would differentiate you from a mainstream economist.

    Mainstream economists TEND to argue that macro monetary policy is ‘above’ all of that:

    i) that the business cycle MAY be affected by the government, but that the net result is actually still better than it would be if we constrained the government.

    ii) The idea that we push problems down the road is fine, because in the progressive view, technology will save us in the future. (Really.)  

    iii) that individual benefits are distributed by complex means, so that in the end, it all works our if they take your property and give it to someone else, and increase risk and government debt.

    iiii) Austrian economics is logical, but does not place an emphasis on the empirical, or at least, casts doubt on the empirical statements mainstream economists make. And since economics as a discipline is actually econometrics then this means you have no place in economics departments.

    You would CHOOSE to study Austrian economics only if you either have a) a moral objection to Keynesianism, or b) it violates your observation about human nature, or c) the externalities it will produce accumulate into even more serious problems than the business cycle. (That’s what libertarians argue.)

    The reason some of us tend to choose Austrian economics is because we have a political interest in the long term effects of policy on society. And because we think norms and institutions are not arbitrary.  This category of questions is in the domain of POLITICAL ECONOMY, not really that of monetary economics.  And as such, most of us would recommend that you study Austrian economics in the context of political science, or ethical philosophy, rather than monetary economics, and do so in support of a political science degree where first year macro and micro economics really are sufficient.

    GMU does teach Austrianism and their program is competitive, and their students are sought out precisely for that reason. The developing world, where corruption is a serious problem, also tends to have austrian influence, because it explains at least in part, why these countries remain poor: they don’t have property rights.

    The truth is that in our advanced countries, where we do have at least marginal property rights and limited corruption, Austrian principles are not as important as macro principles.  So I think it is more that Austrianism is an early stage way of looking at the world, and once you’ve succeeded with institutions at the austrian level you can more easily make use of macro institutions without such substantially negative externalities. Although most dedicated austrians (the ideological kind) might disagree with me, I kind of doubt that I’d lose the argument.)  🙂 

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-Keynesians-view-Austrian-economics