In the second installment of of my book recommendation series:
Immanuel Kant's greatest work
Critique of Pure Reason. This is the most important and revolutionary treatise in the history of all epistemology. My own philosophical interests focus very much on Kantian reason theory (besides my obvious interest in political philosophy). This is because all knowledge is based on the theory of knowledge. What is real or unreal? What exists? What can human knowledge encompass? What can we really discover or even be able to possibly think about? These questions are answered by Kant. For the first time in history this great philosopher introduces the concept of
synthetic a priori statements which are now the basis of all human knowledge. For myself I must say I was at first very skeptical of Kant's theories. It took me a while to get used to the notion of perfectly sound and valid
analytic a priori arguments being rejected outright. But clearly this is the case - as Kant explains. To many people such abstract notions as the foundations of knowledge may seem unnecessary or "far off", but the reality is different. In order to really know anything we must first know what our knowledge is based upon. In the
Critique of Pure Reason and some later works Kant explains just this. He says that the principle of contradiction is not enough to make a statement about the real world. It is only enough to make a valid logical point in the analytic sense. In many ways (although I am not an expert on Kant's work) I think this is the most important of his books. Often Kantian Ethics or such topics get emphasized, but we should all know that this man's greatest contribution to today's world was his revolutionary theory of knowledge. Not to mention that Kant does assert that Natural Rights and Law are supreme in the ethical sphere!
When skimming through the book to quickly find a
Kantian quote worth mentioning in this post I read the following eloquent passage:
"Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind". This is the essence of all synthetic a priori including praxeology (also known as Austrian theory). Denying synthetic axiomatic statements would be foolish. Kant's
Critique of Pure Reason should be included in every curriculum of basic economics... In the human sciences one cannot be a David Hume, but neither can one be an Aristotle.
Matt you missed the point of the last blog entirely.
ReplyDeleteLets use synthetic a prior statement for the following: "Gravity exists." That synthetic a prior argument is perfectly valid. However, that does not help scientists or physicists whatsoever in anything because there would be no way you could quantify the force that gravity is composed of without deriving that knowledge through empirical means of testing and retesting. You could not say that on Earth gravity where you stand right now is 9.8 meters per second through synthetic a prior statements, but that is a complete guess. On some sections of the Earth where people live the force is less, on others it is more. It is entirely relative to the size of the masses. You could say that the force of gravity could be theoretically perfectly zero in outer space, although that is impossible because of the other conflicting masses in outer space and their conflicting gravitational forces, or it could be greater than 9.8 meter per second on other planets. Einstein believed in the theory of general relativity as a solid a priori (not synthetic or analytical as he rejected either approach as purely correct), but it took him years of testing and retesting before he found a consistent formula to quantify it, all done through a positivist and empirical approach, an approach also accepted by Stephen Hawking. The process of quantification and numbers is half of what economists spend all day calculating in any market, including equities, bonds, and stocks. By ignoring the quantification which varies entirely based on empirical research and that is not derived from any a priori statement, you ignore at least half of reality. I could simply say "Gravity exists," and not have any numbers on how to functionally use this statement in practical physics because these numbers cannot be derived from synthetic a priori, and the average physicist could walk away from me laughing hysterically having learned nothing. I could simply say the dollar will become hyper inflated based on qualitative reasoning, and almost all economists would simply walk away from me because I oversimplified the quantitative part of economics to align with my synthetic a priori axiom which had masked hidden assumptions inadvertently built in. You can simply refuse to accept the form of the scientific method or any positivist notion whenever it challenges or conflicts with the basis of your synthetic a priori statement, as some Austrians do, but even Kant would say that there has to be a strong relationship between rationalism and empiricism in order for any axiom to be universally accepted as both valid and sound (i.e. true). This applies even in the field of economics.
"No, the proper statement would be (and this is what most axiomatic schools such as the Austrian School use) "The angles of a Euclidian triangle add up to 180 degrees""
That is also what most Keynesians, including Krugman agree upon. It is not exclusively an Austrian or axiomatic school of thought.
""Black holes are one of only a fairly small number of cases in the history of science in which a theory was developed in great detail as a mathematical model before there was any evidence from observations that it was correct."
-Stephen Hawking
Likewise, many axiomatic schools are predicated on many lofty assumptions where there are very few instances of theories being developed, before the evidence from observations, as being correct.
Matt, you cannot prove that you exist to 100% regardless of what you believe, just like you cannot prove with absolute certainty that there is a God. If you did you would have established a synthetic a priori axiom so universally accepted by mankind you would be swimming in a sea of prize money right now. You could just create an axiom predicated on a synthetic a priori belief that cannot be proven as absolute, just like your belief in God. "I think therefore I am" is the closest axiom most men have agreed upon, but most philosophers consider this at the very least unsound and at the most untested. You can argue, as Einstein did, that the theory of general relativity backs the assertion that you exist in some form, but the probability of you knowing you exist within a known time and space in an infinite universe of time and spaces is close to 0. So, it is nearly impossible (the possibility infinitely reaching 0 but never touching it) to prove unless your synthetic a priori reasoning and axiom is predicated on a belief, at which point one belief can contradict another's.
ReplyDeleteOkay since you always use my own statements against me I will use the same strategy. You wrote: "I could simply say the dollar will become hyper inflated based on qualitative reasoning, and almost all economists would simply walk away from me". That would be like saying that if you walked up to a physicist and told him that the moon causes the tides he would walk away from you. The law of gravity exists regardless of its strength or force. That is why it is axiomatic. Quantitative analysis does indeed matter a lot (for example Copernicus used it to prove the Earth travels around the Sun), but that does not mean that one can disregard qualitative statements. A physicist cannot deny the existence of the law of gravity when calculating his formulas just like an economist cannot disregard economic axioms. Gravity is always there, and so is the law od supply and demand. Secondly you really got yourself in trouble with your statement that "you cannot prove that you exist to 100%". This is false. I can prove that I exist through synthetic a priori or just the plain "cogito ergo sum" of Descartes. If I did not exist I could not, per se, "do" anything. And since I "do", I am!
ReplyDeleteWell, "I do, I am." does not prove anything. Existence is not predicated on doing anything or thinking anything, otherwise a comatose quadriplegic on oxygen support would not be in a state of existence until he awoke, unless you defined his doing as being comatose, which is at the very least unsound. And you presuppose the existence of "I" before "do" even if I is not in quotation marks.
ReplyDelete"If A, then B.
And from there it's just a tiny step to real deductive reasoning:
If A, then B.
If B, then C.
Therefore: If A, then C.
Simple stuff! Let's use a real life example:
If the US Congress enacts bail-outs, then the Federal Reserve prints money.
If the Federal Reserve prints money, then inflation is created.
Therefore: If the US Congress enacts bail-outs, then inflation is created."- you
"I could simply say the dollar will become hyper inflated based on qualitative reasoning, and almost all economists would simply walk away from me"
Matt, then every mainstream economists currently working would be violating the laws of economics in either an immoral or ignorant way. Of course they could all be wrong, just like I could be wrong about the sun rising tomorrow, but I doubt it. The way you interpret the law of supply and demand is based on several assumptions that any trader on Wall Street or any person on the Wall Street Journal would reject as false. And the reason why there aren't more Austrian millionaires in any stock market in the world following this Austrian model is not because they are always correct and somehow are just "misunderstood" or "intellectually persecuted"... Nouriel Roubini and Robert Shiller, both Keynsian professors, and Peter Schiff, an Austrian economist, both predicted the housing bubble (Roubini in 2004, Schiller in 2005, Schiff in 2006). Their means were entirely different yet the end conclusions were the same. Then are we then too assume that the means Roubini used are always incorrect and the means Schiff used are always correct simply because of different ideological beliefs. According to the Austrians, yes...and that is only because Peter Schiff has a louder voice than Roubini or Shiller on the internet and blogo-sphere.
At times, even your axioms and premises suppose to much. To confuse inflation of commodities and oil with hyper-inflationary consequences seems to confuse a bit too much. Even sellers of gold have stopped citing Peter Schiff as one of the reasons you should buy gold.
Also:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/peter-schiff-was-wrong.html
http://www.erictyson.com/articles/20090213
Of course you'll probably reject this to. There is nothing I could do because you will always think I'm wrong on this.
"The way you interpret the law of supply and demand is based on several assumptions that any trader on Wall Street or any person on the Wall Street Journal would reject as false." - You. What are you talking about? There is only ONE law of supply and demand. That's the point of axioms. They are always true and real and they cannot be interpreted in different ways. The problem with neoclassical economics is the same problem that existed with Soviet economics. I hope you don't think Soviets were all idiots right? In fact economics of socialist and capitalism was a compulsory subject in high school in communist Poland and they learned about Mises (which is something today's liberal economics classes don't do). The Commies thought Mises produced the best critique of Communism and Socialism whereas Paul Samuelson (on whose teaching most of modern economics is based) was actually on the side of the Soviets. We must remember that Samuelson (who was a big influence on Krugman) actually predicted that the Soviet Union will overtake the US as an economic power... I think neoclassicals have zero credibility as predictors of anything. Even a blind man can hit the target once in a while. Bernanke, who is a Friedmanite, had no idea the US was approaching a recession even in 2007 and 2008 (whereas Schiff was predicting it since the 1990's tech-stock bubble crash). And you still trust these people? Good luck with life, we'll see who was right in a couple years (I expect as early as 2011-2012).
ReplyDeletePlus your critique of the proofs of existence is wrong. By the very act of trying to prove this proof wrong you are proving it right. If you didn't exist you would not be able to interact with your surroundings (i.e. you would not have any cognitive abilities) inluding me, your own mind, or your computer.
"If you didn't exist you would not be able to interact with your surroundings (i.e. you would not have any cognitive abilities) including me, your own mind, or your computer."
ReplyDelete-That is also the premise of the Matrix where people do not actually realize that they do not exist, lol.
Just because I have not spent time studying the issue to articulate my disagreement in a better manner does not mean I'm wrong.
"The problem with neoclassical economics is the same problem that existed with Soviet economics."
These are the sort of premises along your axioms I'm talking about. And we just get back to the issue of everyone who is Austrian is always right economically, and everyone who is always wrong is among the others. So thus endeth the debate that could never be resolved and I'm signing off.
All debates could be resolved if people started using reason rather than superstitions and assumptions :) But sadly propaganda and myth appeals to most human minds more than reason. Also - living within an illusion or a dream like the Matrix was dealt with by both Descartes and Kant who still proved that even in such a case the "I" (absolute subject) exists because everything else is defined by referencing its relation to the "I".
ReplyDelete"Also - living within an illusion or a dream like the Matrix was dealt with by both Descartes and Kant who still proved that even in such a case the "I" (absolute subject) exists because everything else is defined by referencing its relation to the "I"."
ReplyDeleteYes, and everything else exists with the I, but like most of the characters in the world of the Matrix, that does not necessitate that everything surrounding and in relation to the "I" exists in a true state or form. And thus comparing the relationship of existence between the existence of "I" (absolute subject) to everything else defined by referencing it is lofty at best.
"Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed (again assumed) or pre-supposed in order for thinking (and doing) to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking"
There are other criticisms of Kant and Decartes on this distinguished idea of "doing" which presupposes "knowing or thinking that someone is doing" on top of presupposing "I" in relationship to it.
"The problem with neoclassical economics is the same problem that existed with Soviet economics."
Yes, according to that everything economic can be blamed on the derived existence of a state (as Austrians always do), which ignores the empirical evidence that may even negatively correlate with any synthetic a prior assumption that the Austrians have established. Even parts of the modern Austrian school, beginning with Hayek ("I had never accepted Mises’ a-priorisms"), began to move away from this very quickly...
There are divisions in the Austrian school relating to the acceptance of some syntetic a priori statements.
"Whether we consider the Action Axiom "a priori" or "empirical" depends on our ultimate philosophical position. Professor Mises, in the neo-Kantian tradition, considers this axiom a law of thought and therefore a categorical truth a priori to all experience. My own epistemological position rests on Aristotle and St. Thomas rather than Kant, and hence I would interpret the proposition differently. I would consider the axiom a law of reality rather than a law of thought, and hence "empirical" rather than "a priori.""- Rothbard
There also very strong criticisms of Mises' action-axiom and Hoppe's method of praxeology in relationship to these axioms but it takes forever to find online.