LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksCorrect. and yes you are following me correctly. Oh and he, just to save you typing those two extra letters.Originally Posted by stringjack
Correct. and yes you are following me correctly. Oh and he, just to save you typing those two extra letters.
"She'll hold together. Hear me, baby? Hold together!"
"I take your point and agree, but we cannot say that economics is a science."
I do really know nothing about economics, just with the papers full of it at the moment I'm trying to grasp it. But since a long time, and still, I feel it isn't something that exists. It always seems to me as something constructed, artificial. Not something that is in the nature of human beings or societies. I can't describe this properly. Kind of like: We watch what's going on, and everything that has to do with money we call "economy". Probably best would be to say it has no existence on its own, albeit we are always made to believe it, and some sometimes do believe it. Sorry, I don't find better words.
But I like this thread, because it seems to work beyond the usual levels.
I think I get what you're saying. It's like an artifical division of the wider study of human behaviour.
I'd say the divide started just because different people are interested in different parts of human behaviour, so people interested in money, markets, production and consumption study economics. And I'd say the divide deepened because of the way universities are organised, so all the economists have their own department and they don't talk to the sociologists.
"She'll hold together. Hear me, baby? Hold together!"
Wow, I come back to some great posts, happy to rejoin you lads.
Because peoples subjective values, beliefs, and goals change all the time. It is extremely unlikely that these changes will be able to be mathematically modelled so that future changes can be predicted (anytime soon!)
I can only prove to myself that I act if I take it as a belief in self-evidence that I am conscious.
Do you see any contradiction though with you saying that you can have a-priori knowledge of your own consciousness? If for example you were to be born without any senses/feeling would you be conscious of your consciousness? Is consciousness empirical or a-priori ?
Technically we can only "believe" laws - the action axiom (empirical or a-priori) included because it requires a conscious mind to realise or understand that they exist. If this is then the case should we as individuals give up on science altogether or even contemplation as a "pointless past-time" due to the possibility that we are living in a "matrix-like-construct" with laws that are possibly only artificial, and that our minds beliefs or understandings can be manipulated at any time? We could say that we don't "know" anything, only believe. But this as much destroys EVERY kind of study, for ANY field, not just Austrian Economics. We must surely accept logical reasoning and consciousness as a pre-requisite for any deductions or knowledge?
[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: :
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Does that mean we shouldn't try?
What about climate science? Which similar to (non-austrian) economics uses models. Should we not try to predict the weather or the climate because we know we might never have a perfect model? Is it not enough to have an imperfect model that seems to work and which explains everything that happend up til now, which we will change if it varies with reality?
I can only prove that I act, if I do act. Believing in self-evidence would be an act in itself.I can only prove to myself that I act if I take it as a belief in self-evidence that I am conscious.
If I am able to believe in self-evidence then I act.
I can only attempt to prove that I don't act if I act, so I can never prove that I don't act.
If I have consciousness then I know I have consciousness. If I can think I have consciousness. I know I have consciousness because if I didn't have consciousness I wouldn't be able to think. Each individuals own consciousness is a-priori. Even if I am some sort of conscious computer program or a living brain in a jar this still applies.Do you see any contradiction though with you saying that you can have a-priori knowledge of your own consciousness? If for example you were to be born without any senses/feeling would you be conscious of your consciousness? Is consciousness empirical or a-priori ?
If it's a-priori (and it's true) then we know it we don't only believe it. That's why Austrian economics claims it is not open to falsification because it claims to be a-priori.Technically we can only "believe" laws - the action axiom (empirical or a-priori) included because it requires a conscious mind to realise or understand that they exist. If this is then the case should we as individuals give up on science altogether or even contemplation as a "pointless past-time" due to the possibility that we are living in a "matrix-like-construct" with laws that are possibly only artificial, and that our minds beliefs or understandings can be manipulated at any time? We could say that we don't "know" anything, only believe. But this as much destroys EVERY kind of study, for ANY field, not just Austrian Economics. We must surely accept logical reasoning and consciousness as a pre-requisite for any deductions or knowledge?
[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]
All things empiracal we can only believe yes. This does not destroy ANY kind of study. Belief is enough, we believe what is most reasonable and leave all our knowledge open to correction by a more likely alternative. This is what sciences do and this is what social sciences including economics should do too.
I mean just think of your real life, if you didn't accept reasonable belief as enough you wouldn't be able to move from your bed in the morning because the floor mightn't be there if you got out, even if it appears to be there. And you most certainly would never ever be able to find a partner because you wouldn't be able to trust anyone.
If we want any knowlede that is indubitable then we must doubt all that is doubted, and not accept anything just because it's convenient. However it just so happens that a consciousness cannot doubt it's own existence because in order to do so it must exist. Therefore for each consciousness it's own existence is indubitable.
Similarly in order to doubt logical reasoning we would have to use logical reasoning so it is indubitable.
"She'll hold together. Hear me, baby? Hold together!"
Oh of course not, it is important for human progress to try such things, achieving the seemingly impossible
I implore you please don't open up that can of worms in this thread!! Haha, I hear a new thread calling! ibis is scratching at the door!
I won't deny the logic of these statements. I believe we are both in agreement on this axiom "I act".
I also agree. Uh-oh this is a worrying trend!
This is muddy waters we're getting into for sure. It is a question I have to reflect further on surely (I think I'll have to place an order for Kants Critique of Pure Reason on play.com tonight!), but can I ask one question: You say that we can say "humans act" only empirically, but this would mean having to test every human would it not continuously on a trial and error basis? Instead, if we consider the statement from the position of a-priori knowledge, we know by the definitions of "human" and of "action" and also our inner reflections that this statement is true. ? Comment please.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: :
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
My head hurts. WTF?!
"People shouldn't fear their Governments, Governments should fear their people."
Woo, for agreement! If only because the posts where getting long.
If we wanted to know empirically we would have to test all humans yes(if we even had a conclusive test of consciousness). This goes back to not needing to know. In empirical studies we can make reasonable inferences and make reasonable assumptions to come up with a reasonable answer which is what all the sciences do. I can attempt to show you how we would try and prove empirically that "humans act" is reasonable if you want.
You see, and stringjack was getting at the earlier, for the statement to be useful the definitions of 'action' and 'humans' have to be independent. So if by definition humans act, then the statement "humans act" is like saying "humans are human", which is useless. That is a-priori knowledge but it's useless a-priori knowledge and we certainly couldn't build economic knowledge from it.Instead, if we consider the statement from the position of a-priori knowledge, we know by the definitions of "human" and of "action" and also our inner reflections that this statement is true. ? Comment please.
"She'll hold together. Hear me, baby? Hold together!"
That's assuming you have a head...
"She'll hold together. Hear me, baby? Hold together!"
I read the wikipedia article about Austrian economics. I do not maintain I understood it all.
If someone could tell me what "marginal economy" means I would be grateful. There was also a sentence which I didn't understand because of its grammar I suppose (English isn't my first language):
"A factory making goods next year is worth as much less as the goods it is making next year are worth."?
But what I wanted to mention here:
Do economic theories take account of our not acting?
There are many ways in which humans don't act, or don't act in certain ways, which must play a role in society (e.g ethics, law) and economics.
Apart from times where we don't act, such as sleeping, reflecting, certain types of reading, watching TV, daydreaming, let our thoughts wander, certain ways of relaxing... ,we also always don't act in one of the many other ways that would be alternatively possible at a certain time.
(Advertising comes to mind which tries to get people act in a specific way). There are various ways not to act: omitt, refrain, forget, getting interrupted, making mistakes ("I better hadn't done this, but that instead"), having no time for X because we do Y, such as not having cleaned the bathroom because I worked in the garden, postpone, etc. In a way every act is at the same time not acting in other ways. These are not always concious or well thought out decisions, sometimes it just so happens. Sometimes on the other hand not acting can become an act in itself, such as for example refrain from something (e.g. smoking).
It's something I thought about generally before, but here now re economics it comes to mind again.
Someone decides to spend the 20 Euro he has left this week: on this, and not that. Or he decides to save it, and not spend it. And acts accordingly and doesn't act in the other ways.
Companies want people to decide to buy their products, and not those of others.
We have a time now were saving instead of spending seems important, a while ago spending acts/activities were more common.
Many people bought houses, went for mortgages, built houses, now they don't.
These are just a few examples.
And not having had that amount of building activity in a few years would now probably not cost so many jobs, downturn, bad debts, so mistakes were made.
The government should, and I miss this, analyse what has happened, what went wrong, what the mistakes were, whether certain not acting, refraining from acting, omitting acting, not supporting certain acting, would have been better.
Again, I hope you get what I'm on about.
Is the role of not acting taken account of in any theory?
Reply With Quote