I think that David poses one of the most important questions in economics: "if the subjective view of value is so obvious, why did so many people miss it for so long?" Unfortunately, I didn't find his answer very satisfying... he basically just referenced Marx's oddball classification of "exchange value" e.g. "what something will be exchanged for if traded", which obviously conflicts with the subjective view (the answer is that it depends on those specific humans making a given exchange). So, as far as I can see, this is still an open question. Maybe the answer is that Marx wasn't so smart after all. As for Aristotle, perhaps he just didn't think it through carefully and had little economic theory for shoulders to stand upon?
Kon Berner Because there are some pseudo economidyd that are out there trying to teach people that choices are only a product of "do I get that much money or that much money"? They are so short sighted. Do you want to keep freedom or lose freedom? THey don't ask the second question because they're in the water at room temperature, and once they're in it rises slowly to a boiling point at which time it's too late. Put someone like Krugman right next Marx.... You have two identical minds, neither of which were that intelligent but driven by selfishness.
***** Yes, these are very close to my own thoughts on the matter! Freud had penis envy, and economists and ethicists had (have) physics envy. The problem is that as there is a reason that there are extremely few laws in biology, so are there very few or maybe even no laws in sociology. Ethics and economics are in the domain of sociology. Messy topics that tend to have a great deal of arbitrariness, subjectivity, variation, and exceptions galore. This is why I love both Bastiat and Mises so much. They pointed out problems with socialism, but for the most part left the question open as to how it is best for people to live. Why? Because it depends on the values of the specific people inf specific cases. The only thing that is obviously broken is forcing others to conform to your ideology: the heart of socialism.
This is a great topic, but I do think there is substantial confusion here regarding skepticism and how to address it in relation to praxeology. Here are my thoughts: 1) Mises specifically stated in Human Action, "Reasoning and scientific inquiry can never bring full ease of mind, apodictic certainty, and perfect cognition of all things. He who seeks this must apply to faith and try to quiet his conscience by embracing a creed or a metaphysical doctrine." -von Mises, Ludwig (2009-03-30). Human Action: Scholar's Edition (LvMI). So, he already agrees with Quine, there are no certainties that cannot be overthrown by further evidence.... there is no apodictic certainty. 2) Later, he states, "The subject matter of praxeology is human action. It is not concerned with human beings who have succeeded in suppressing altogether everything that characterizes man as man: will, desire, thought, and the striving after ends. It deals with acting man, not with man transformed into a plant and reduced to a merely vegetative existence." So, we don't need apodictic certainty to deal with Human Action, we can simply grant that it is is limited to the context wherein humans act to accomplish things. Note that he is even granting that praxeology doesn't work for all humans! Only non-vegetative humans. 3) Hoppe has given some nice lectures where he talks about humans having created formulas that obviously work to create toasters, airplanes, and such. Applying these formulas is the context of production in modern human life. So, this frames the discussion to be limited to the context of modern human life, there is no reason to prove that praxeology works anywhere else in the universe or is someone an ultimate given. Therefore, the solution here is not to attempt to beat the skeptics at the game of certainty (which they should be supported in being skeptical about, an as David pointed out, this also applies to science in general), but to grant that the context that praxeology operates is only obvious for modern (or recent) human activity... this takes all of the brains in the vat stuff off the table.
Interesting, but I think 'From the inside...' is a bit vague. Yeah, it's fair to say that I do exist and that I do act, but I know these things because they are logically consistent. That is to say, even if we exist in a computer simulation of some kind, I know that I am still some kind of intelligence as I'm able to think and reference myself. Did I 'know' this before being instructed by smart guys like Aristotle and René Descartes? I don't think so... I may have 'felt' it, but I wouldn't have been able to tell you in any convincing terms whether that feeling related to an actual truth... Not without analytic methodolgy. We know the scientific model is the model for obtaining knowledge because of its track record... The fruit of science enriches our lives everyday. On the other hand, I have yet to hear of a vaccine or computer created by applying synthetic philosophy.
The great Dr. Gordon! The great philosopher and economist.
He stopped on the best part!
I think that David poses one of the most important questions in economics: "if the subjective view of value is so obvious, why did so many people miss it for so long?" Unfortunately, I didn't find his answer very satisfying... he basically just referenced Marx's oddball classification of "exchange value" e.g. "what something will be exchanged for if traded", which obviously conflicts with the subjective view (the answer is that it depends on those specific humans making a given exchange).
So, as far as I can see, this is still an open question. Maybe the answer is that Marx wasn't so smart after all. As for Aristotle, perhaps he just didn't think it through carefully and had little economic theory for shoulders to stand upon?
Kon Berner Because there are some pseudo economidyd that are out there trying to teach people that choices are only a product of "do I get that much money or that much money"? They are so short sighted. Do you want to keep freedom or lose freedom? THey don't ask the second question because they're in the water at room temperature, and once they're in it rises slowly to a boiling point at which time it's too late.
Put someone like Krugman right next Marx.... You have two identical minds, neither of which were that intelligent but driven by selfishness.
***** Yes, these are very close to my own thoughts on the matter! Freud had penis envy, and economists and ethicists had (have) physics envy.
The problem is that as there is a reason that there are extremely few laws in biology, so are there very few or maybe even no laws in sociology. Ethics and economics are in the domain of sociology.
Messy topics that tend to have a great deal of arbitrariness, subjectivity, variation, and exceptions galore.
This is why I love both Bastiat and Mises so much. They pointed out problems with socialism, but for the most part left the question open as to how it is best for people to live. Why? Because it depends on the values of the specific people inf specific cases. The only thing that is obviously broken is forcing others to conform to your ideology: the heart of socialism.
This is a great topic, but I do think there is substantial confusion here regarding skepticism and how to address it in relation to praxeology. Here are my thoughts:
1) Mises specifically stated in Human Action, "Reasoning and scientific inquiry can never bring full ease of mind, apodictic certainty, and perfect cognition of all things. He who seeks this must apply to faith and try to quiet his conscience by embracing a creed or a metaphysical doctrine."
-von Mises, Ludwig (2009-03-30). Human Action: Scholar's Edition (LvMI). So, he already agrees with Quine, there are no certainties that cannot be overthrown by further evidence.... there is no apodictic certainty.
2) Later, he states, "The subject matter of praxeology is human action. It is not concerned with human beings who have succeeded in suppressing altogether everything that characterizes man as man: will, desire, thought, and the striving after ends. It deals with acting man, not with man transformed into a plant and reduced to a merely vegetative existence." So, we don't need apodictic certainty to deal with Human Action, we can simply grant that it is is limited to the context wherein humans act to accomplish things. Note that he is even granting that praxeology doesn't work for all humans! Only non-vegetative humans.
3) Hoppe has given some nice lectures where he talks about humans having created formulas that obviously work to create toasters, airplanes, and such. Applying these formulas is the context of production in modern human life. So, this frames the discussion to be limited to the context of modern human life, there is no reason to prove that praxeology works anywhere else in the universe or is someone an ultimate given.
Therefore, the solution here is not to attempt to beat the skeptics at the game of certainty (which they should be supported in being skeptical about, an as David pointed out, this also applies to science in general), but to grant that the context that praxeology operates is only obvious for modern (or recent) human activity... this takes all of the brains in the vat stuff off the table.
29:57 Bertrand Russel joke.
23:00 (placeholder for myself)
Interesting, but I think 'From the inside...' is a bit vague. Yeah, it's fair to say that I do exist and that I do act, but I know these things because they are logically consistent. That is to say, even if we exist in a computer simulation of some kind, I know that I am still some kind of intelligence as I'm able to think and reference myself. Did I 'know' this before being instructed by smart guys like Aristotle and René Descartes? I don't think so... I may have 'felt' it, but I wouldn't have been able to tell you in any convincing terms whether that feeling related to an actual truth... Not without analytic methodolgy. We know the scientific model is the model for obtaining knowledge because of its track record... The fruit of science enriches our lives everyday. On the other hand, I have yet to hear of a vaccine or computer created by applying synthetic philosophy.