tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post5649925160137928177..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: JARS: "A Beauty Contest for Dichotomies: Browne's Terminological Revolutions"Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-45366749119158706382007-09-08T21:09:00.000-07:002007-09-08T21:09:00.000-07:00R. Long: "One can't simply declare a priori that a...R. Long: "One can't simply declare a priori that all fields are empirical."<BR/><BR/>But I have not said this. What I merely contend is for the "cognitive superiority" of so-called empirical science. I have no where suggested that this empirical method can be applied to all fields. Indeed, that's one cognitive challenges facing mankind: that empirical science cannot solve all questions concerning the nature of factual reality. In those fields where empirical methods are hamstrung (such as economics, where the inability to isolate variables frustrates any attempt for rigorous empirical testing), deductive methods must be resorted. But these, I contend, are inferior methods. In economics, the theorist deduces principles from simplified premises. Precisely because the premises are simplified, the most the theorist can hope for is some kind of approximation of reality. Hence, the economist Frank Knight, a defender of this method cited approvingly by von Mises in <EM>Human Action</EM>, describes the deductive method in economics as "the method of successive approximations." Austrian economists, including von Mises himself, have tended to place too much faith in their deductions, leading to dogmatism and a failure to grapple with parts of their theory whose accordance with reality is not as felicitous as one might wish. There might, for example, be some questions regarding how well the Austrian view of protectionism fits in with the empirical effects of protectionism in America in the 19th century. I contend that mere deduction from over-simplified premises cannot settle this question, or any other question, for all time, particularly absence of clear and unambiguous empirical corroboration, which, of course, is impossible in economics. Sometimes the best we can do is make an educated guess!gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-55004520539751004412007-09-08T16:36:00.000-07:002007-09-08T16:36:00.000-07:00Roderick:>...one can't simply declare a priori tha...Roderick:<BR/>>...one can't simply declare a priori that all fields are empirical.<BR/><BR/>Hi Roderick,<BR/><BR/>I suppose that depends on what you mean by "empirical." My friend, Popper and Mises scholar Rafe Champion has written a paper which shows how Popper's Critical Rationalism might overcome some of the standard criticisms (eg its apparent rejection of empirical experience) of the Austrian approach:<BR/><BR/>http://www.the-rathouse.com/RC_PopperPaper.htmlDaniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-89009375850037070142007-09-07T11:34:00.000-07:002007-09-07T11:34:00.000-07:00A priori reasoning is better for subjects that ARE...A priori reasoning is better for subjects that ARE a priori (like philosophy and economics) which is why the Aristotelean tradition's contributions in those areas still stand up. (The Aristotelean Scholastics were the fathers of Austrian free-market economics. For a deense of a priori economics see <A HREF="http://praxeology.net/antipsych.pdf" REL="nofollow">http://praxeology.net/antipsych.pdf</A>.) Empirical methods are better for subjects that ARE empirical (like natural science) which is why Aristotelean methods have held up less well there. Whether a given field is empirical or a priori is something that must be determined by investigtaing its nature; one can't simply declare a priori that all fields are empirical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-40966044812048001362007-04-10T05:40:00.000-07:002007-04-10T05:40:00.000-07:00Passing thru a wireless hotspot briefly, I can onl...Passing thru a wireless hotspot briefly, I can only say "bingo" to the above.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-68404657135414394612007-04-09T13:35:00.000-07:002007-04-09T13:35:00.000-07:00Uh - let's look at the facts.From Aristotle (the K...Uh - let's look at the facts.<BR/><BR/>From Aristotle (the King of Arguing from First Principles) to Bacon (Father of the Scientific Method), how much scientific advancement was made? How many major discoveries? Major truths about the nature of mankind and the universe in which he dwells? How about political developments? The advancements of human freedom? The spread of democratic forms of government?<BR/><BR/>And from Bacon to present day, how many scientific discoveries have there been? How many breakthroughs in medicine, physics, chemisty, geology, biology, etc.? How much better do we understand the universe and mankind?<BR/><BR/>If scholars and scientists had kept dickering about "first principles" and reasoning from incomplete we'd still be thinking that a 50 kg stone falls ten times faster than a 5 kg stone. We'd also still be thinking that rocks fall because , being composed of earth, they seek to join the earth and smoke rises because, it being composed of mostly air, seeks to join the air.<BR/><BR/>Well, maybe not. We might just as well have a different set of "first principles" that offer wildy different but equally fallacious explanations and predictions about the ourselves and the world around us. Either way, we wouldn't be any nearer to understanding that things really are or why they are.<BR/><BR/>Any Objectivists out there care to explain how philosopher-supreme Aristotle (and his apologists from Aquinas to Rand) got so much about physics, biology, zoology, meteorology, etc. stone dead wrong when their method is supposedly so superior?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-16458783321665032162007-04-08T09:21:00.000-07:002007-04-08T09:21:00.000-07:00A good example is Rand's theory of concept formati...A good example is Rand's theory of concept formation. Rand was quite content to tell you how the mind of adults, children and even animals operate because she assumed that for concepts to be "objective" the mind must work in a certain way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com