patrick.net

indigenous says

Dan if you write another book I will not respond, it takes too long to read your blather.

When I saw how long his response was, I skipped to the next comment. It's not my bed time yet.
Dan, you need to post quality, not quantity.

Has anybody noticed the Austrians aren't exactly Johnny-on-the-spot with evidence, statistical or otherwise?

All they have is "Logic" which flows from bullshit propositions which have little to no empirical support.

I'm not surprised Woods Jr., Hans Herman-Hoppe, and the rest of the gang love medieval scholasticism and hate evidence based reasoning.

thunderlips11 says

Has anybody noticed the Austrians aren't exactly Johnny-on-the-spot with evidence, statistical or otherwise?

As opposed to graphs that indicate what ever the poster deems them to mean. E.G. Bill who is the most prodigious of the graph posters yet has 80 people on ignore.

thunderlips11 says

All they have is "Logic" which flows from bullshit propositions which have little to no empirical support.

The bullshit propositions are called praxelogy and by definition are self evident.

thunderlips11 says

I'm not surprised Woods Jr., Hans Herman-Hoppe, and the rest of the gang love medieval scholasticism and hate evidence based reasoning.

I find them to be as pragmatic in their examples as any scientist or engineer.

Reality says

Any "data and facts" purporting to prove the Acton quote wrong can only be described as missing a forest for a leaf. Most tyrannies in world history probably started off with some "data and facts" to prove that they were "good for the people." LOL.

So, in other words. Data and facts are misleading, so people just need to trust what you say?

You're getting very close to indigenous territory.

Reality says

I do make citations when the thesis is not presumed to be common sense to a person with a moderate knowledge base. I do not need to cite anything to prove the sun rises in the east to an observer on planet earth, or 1+1=2.

It's amazing how many times something that you presume to be common sense is proven to be incorrect. You obviously possess very little common sense and would be much better off looking at facts and data as they would show you how distorted your views are.

tatupu70 says

I do make citations when the thesis is not presumed to be common sense to a person with a moderate knowledge base. I do not need to cite anything to prove the sun rises in the east to an observer on planet earth, or 1+1=2.

It's amazing how many times something that you presume to be common sense is proven to be incorrect. You obviously possess very little common sense and would be much better off looking at facts and data as they would show you how distorted your views are.

So you are making blind statements again without data to back you up. LOL. Please don't mistake me for the guy in your mirror.

Woah is me, I have to work a shitty paying job, or live on a shitty monthly welfare stipend.

It's OK everybody the Liberals are here to cajole you into appreciating Liberal wake.

tatupu70 says

But what good posters do is provide their argument and then support it with data.

To which neither of you are good posters then?

What you do is a kicked in the head version of the Socratic method.

indigenous says

What in God's Green Acres does Money Velocity have to do with debating whether productivity or bargaining power as the key to rising wages?

indigenous says

thunderlips11 says

Has anybody noticed the Austrians aren't exactly Johnny-on-the-spot with evidence, statistical or otherwise?

As opposed to graphs that indicate what ever the poster deems them to mean. E.G. Bill who is the most prodigious of the graph posters yet has 80 people on ignore.

Answered this above. Now I see you just threw it out there. My graphs were relevant, yours were not. When you have facts, pound the facts, when you have the law, pound the law, when all you have is ideology, pound the table.

indigenous says

thunderlips11 says

All they have is "Logic" which flows from bullshit propositions which have little to no empirical support.

The bullshit propositions are called praxelogy and by definition are self evident.

Rubbish. Austrians have a long history of failed predictions based on Prax. This is because their premises are flawed, and they fail to modify their theory with reality.
Where is that hyperinflation that inevitably was supposed to come years, nay, decades ago?

Other inevitable shit sourced from couch-based reasoning that didn't happen: Comets bringing the Aliens to save the World, the Return of Jesus, the "Superpredators" of the 90s (crime rate instead nosedived), and Perfect Utopian Communism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Austrians have been beating the drum for hyperinflation since not just 2000, or 2008, but from at least the late 70s. It's always "Just around the corner". Eventually, we WILL get hyperinflation at some point in the next century or so - but since a broken clock is right twice a day, this does not erase decades of wolf crying and the failure of Prax.

indigenous says

I find them to be as pragmatic in their examples as any scientist or engineer.

I take it you mean in their 'logical' argumentation, not in their ability to point to any evidence that what they say is true, or coming true.

thunderlips11 says

What in God's Green Acres does Money Velocity have to do with debating whether productivity or bargaining power as the key to rising wages?

"God's Green Acres" you don't hear that phrase often.

As to the other:

INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'VELOCITY OF MONEY'
Velocity is important for measuring the rate at which money in circulation is used for purchasing goods and services. This helps investors gauge how robust the economy is, and is a key input in the determination of an economy's inflation calculation. Economies that exhibit a higher velocity of money relative to others tend to be further along in the business cycle and should have a higher rate of inflation, all things held constant.

Which means we really haven't experienced much of a recovery.

Reality says

Considering the simple rebuttal of foundational equation "Supply == Demand" with basic calculus (the concept of Limit, and Zeno Paradox on flying arrow), it should be quite clear that Austrians are actually better at math than the "second rate mathematicians" that become Keynesian econometricians.

With respect, you don't know what you're talking about:
Austrians explicitly reject empiricism and mathematics. von Mises fills page after page on the subject in Human Action (which I've read).

Austrians are considered by most economists - even "heterodox" ones - to be jokes. The only Austrians in Academia are those who are there by Private Sponsored Chairs (ie some rich dude likes Austrianism, so requires the University to make a seat for them in the Department as a condition of other donations - that's how BOTH Rothboard and Herman-Hoppe, both at UNLV, were employed). The last time Austrians produced anything considered valuable by Economists in general was some business cycle stuff back a century ago. Note, Hayek is a Neoclassicalist, not an Austrian.

thunderlips11 says

My graphs were relevant, yours were not.

I wasn't referring to your graphs, as I state Bill's graphs. Your graphs indicate the symptom but not the cause.

thunderlips11 says

Where is that hyperinflation that inevitably was supposed to come years, nay, decades ago?

Been covered ad nauseum.

thunderlips11 says

Austrians have been beating the drum for hyperinflation since not just 2000, or 2008, but from at least the late 70s. It's always "Just around the corner". Eventually, we WILL get hyperinflation at some point in the next century or so - but since a broken clock is right twice a day, this does not erase decades of wolf crying and the failure of Prax.

Inflation will be coming, but not hyperinflation as this always involves war, but maybe. Austrians generally don't espouse to the when part.

You act as though economics is a controlled experiment, it is not and there are many factors that influence the economy at any one time.

The whole western world is going to have to re-balance because of a century of fractional banking, debt, and demographic problems.

The Difference between Prax and the Scientific Method

Prax: Too Math Heavy; collection and plotting of data is Empirical Nonsense, especially if it disagrees with my a priori reasoning based prediction.
Scientific Method: No likely Relationship, no likely Correlation. However, research should be repeated and the methodology scrutinized carefully.

Prax: Too Math Heavy, collection and plotting of data is Empirical Nonsense, especially if it disagrees with my a priori reasoning based prediction.
Scientific Method: Strong potential relationship, likely a Correlation. However, research should be repeated and the methodology scrutinized carefully.

So once again you would like to dismiss mathematics as it too is a priori...

Reality says

LOL, in other words you are endorsing Praxeology:

Nope. Prax solely relies on couch-based a priori reasoning. Empiricism need not apply.

Reality says

1. Correlation does not equate to Causation;

Correlation does not necessarily equate to Causation, but where there is smoke, there is usually fire. Correlation leading to Causality is the heart of many, if not most, basic Science Theories. "Gee, isn't it odd that this moldy green stew has overtaken all the Staph bacteria I had in this petri dish. Naaah, just a coincidence. I won't bother exploring if there's a connection - I'll just dump this Penicillium rubens moldy mush down the sink."

What you mean to say is that Correlation doesn't imply causation. But it's a great place to start.

Reality says

2. Many social and human behavioral phenomena are not isolatable or repeatable, therefore the method applied to repeatable hard sciences do not necessarily apply to social phenomena. Your need for additional research/reasoning despite strong correlation is in essence resorting to a priori reasoning.

However, accumulating and comparing data is still superior to couch-based a priori reasoning. Especially when the predicted outcome of that couch based reasoning consistently fails to materialize - like hyper-inflation.

Refusal to measure generally because many measurements aren't perfect (even though many are damn good) is a dumb idea.

Reality says

BTW, it's utter nonsense to call Austrians weak at math

They may or may not be weak at it - but they despise it's use.

Without Mathematics, Statistical Correlation (however flawed), or any Empiricism, how do you Falsify Austrianism?

And that, of course, if why Austrians don't like all three.

indigenous says

So once again you would like to dismiss mathematics as it too is a priori...

Is Euclidian Geometry a priori? How about non-Euclidian Geometry? Math just "is" - a priori or not.

(oh, and some things derived from Mathematical a priori reasoning don't exist in reality, like perfect circles)

Correlation and Causality, Feh!

What they're not showing is the number of people who died from Guillain Barre syndrome! How do they know that it's really the increase in driving due to the increased number of Automobiles that prevents Polio? Conspiracy! Bad Measurement!

thunderlips11 says

Nope. Prax solely relies on couch-based a priori reasoning. Empiricism need not apply.

Nope, you are only proving your own ignorance of what Praxeology is. Before Mises and his Praxeology, the study of economics was divided into two distinct fields: that of Micro Economics (which is based on individual rational decision making), and that of Macro Economics (which is based on (spurious) statistics). Praxeology is an effort at unifying the two separate areas of economic studies. What's becoming increasingly clear over time is that much of the so-called "Macro Economic" "rules" are little more than transient phenomena before people fully apply their rationality to changed circumstances.

thunderlips11 says

Reality says

2. Many social and human behavioral phenomena are not isolatable or repeatable, therefore the method applied to repeatable hard sciences do not necessarily apply to social phenomena. Your need for additional research/reasoning despite strong correlation is in essence resorting to a priori reasoning.

However, accumulating and comparing data is still superior to couch-based a priori reasoning. Especially when the predicted outcome of that couch based reasoning consistently fails to materialize - like hyper-inflation.

You are out of your mind if you think hyper-inflation can be predicted with any regularity based on any current theory. That cuts to the very basis of why Praxeology is correct on soft social phenomena: soft social phenomena are about human responses, often based on personal experience and knowledge of the observer and the reaction-taker, therefore the very knowledge itself would change the outcome, rendering predictions based on previous data incorrect. It's the same problem faced by algorithms predicting derivative risks. Like I said, fools like yourself believing in that predictability are just bad at math modelling.

Refusal to measure generally because many measurements aren't perfect (even though many are damn good) is a dumb idea

Austrians do not refuse to measure, but they recognize the boundary failures in the math models, therefore have much less faith in the math models and conclusions from the math models, unlike the second-rate mathematicians who populate Keynesian econometrics.

thunderlips11 says

Correlation does not necessarily equate to Causation, but where there is smoke, there is usually fire. Correlation leading to Causality is the heart of many, if not most, basic Science Theories. "Gee, isn't it odd that this moldy green stew has overtaken all the Staph bacteria I had in this petri dish. Naaah, just a coincidence. I won't bother exploring if there's a connection - I'll just dump this Penicillium rubens moldy mush down the sink."

So you believe fire truck showing up at a house is the cause for house burning down?

Social phenomena are not hard science like Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and to a lesser degree Medicine. Social phenomena are result of human responses and usually not isolatable (worse than even medicine). Knowledge itself affect human responses. Personally, I believe many social phenomena require much more powerful mathematical tools to abstract than we currently have in math. It's just like Quantum Uncertainty required much more complicated math than that which had powered classical physics previously; likewise, Newton and Leibnitz had to invent Calculus to describe / abstract even classical physics a couple hundred years earlier. The idea that silly pre-calculus can adequately describe and abstract complicated and probablistic social phenomena like economics only goes to show the Keynesians like yourself are very bad mathematicians and bad scientists.

Reality says

Nope, you are only proving your own ignorance of what Praxeology is

Back at you. You are confusing Neoclassical Economics with Austrianism.

Hayek Said in Individualism and Economic Order (Page 73 if you're arsed to check):

(Economic Theory) can never be verified or falsified by reference to facts. All that we can and must verify is the presence of our assumptions in the particular case

Let me repeat that shit: can never be verified or falsified by reference to facts. That isn't the fucking scientific method, in the hard OR soft sciences. It's proof by (deductive) logic. It's Scholasticism. It's no surprise that many Austrians worship Thomas Aquinas.

Here's some more quotes:

Praxeology is the study of those aspects of human action that can be grasped a priori; in other words, it is concerned with the conceptual analysis and logical implications of preference, choice, means-end schemes, and so forth.

ROTHBARD:

While the praxeological method is, to say the least, out of fashion in contemporary economics as well as in social science generally and in the philosophy of science, it was the basic method of the earlier Austrian School and also of a considerable segment of the older classical school, in particular of J.B. Say and Nassau W. Senior.[2]

Praxeology rests on the fundamental axiom that individual human beings act, that is, on the primordial fact that individuals engage in conscious actions toward chosen goals. This concept of action contrasts to purely reflexive, or knee-jerk, behavior, which is not directed toward goals. The praxeological method spins out by verbal deduction the logical implications of that primordial fact. In short, praxeological economics is the structure of logical implications of the fact that individuals act.

Reality says

Before Mises and his Praxeology, the study of economics was divided into two distinct fields: that of Micro Economics (which is based on individual rational decision making), and that of Macro Economics (which is based on (spurious) statistics). Praxeology is an effort at unifying the two separate areas of economic studies. What's becoming increasingly clear over time is that much of the so-called "Macro Economic" "rules" are little more than transient phenomena before people fully apply their rationality to changed circumstances.

Funny, I still see Intro to Micro and Intro to Macro courses taught in any university or college catalog I've ever looked at.

Why have Austrians been unable, with their flawless logic, to convince even a sizable minority of economists to adopt to any of their Praxeological ideas?

Why do Economists reject Austrianism? Why are Austrian-authored texts not found in fundamental econ classes? Conspiracy?

Reality says

You are out of your mind if you think hyper-inflation can be predicted with any regularity based on any theory

Then why do all the Austrians keep predicting it as an inevitable outcome of government (period, since Austrianism is an anarchist viewpoint)?

Reality says

That cuts to the very basis of why Praxeology is correct on soft social phenomena: soft social phenomena is about human responses, often based on personal experience and knowledge, therefore the very knowledge itself would change the outcome, rendering predictions based on previous data incorrect. It's the same problem faced by algorithms predicting derivative risks. Like I said, fools like yourself believing in that predictability are just bad at math modelling.

Explain how praxeology is correct on this "Soft Social Phenomena". Examples please - examples that no other school of economics (or related fields) - could make.

Hmmm, can't make real world predictions. Won't measure much of anything. Insist their ideas are true based on "self-evident" premises.

Color me skeptical.

thunderlips11 says

Correlation doesn't imply causation. In this case, however, we've got reverse causality - the fire truck showed up because the house was burning down. But the fire truck and burning house ARE correlated, no?

Fire Trucks don't often pull up to non-burning houses, and non-burning houses seldom attract fire trucks, right?

Correlation is a great first step in establishing causation.

Fire Trucks usually pull up to non-burning houses due to all kinds of other "emergencies."
Your analysis is essentially application of a priori reasoning.

thunderlips11 says

And yet, the real world experience shows in the 25-30 years since WW2, with a massively expanding government, most of the world (not just the USA) that embarked on government expansion experienced the longest, largest boom in living standards for the average person in world history, without parallel.

And indeed, Keynesian policies immediately reduced unemployment, increased outputs, etc. during the Great Depression the moment after adoption. Whereas deflationary money policies and laissez-faire "Purge the Rottenness out of the System by widespread unmitigated bankruptcies" of 1929-1932 failed to do jack shit, except possibly make it worse.

You are out of your mind if you think Keynes himself would endorse post-WWII expansion of government. Your writing goes to show that the bastardized Keynesians don't even understand what Keynesianism is. Government had to be expanded during war time in order to execute the war. Post-war period would have entailed the contraction of government, as Keynes' own involvement at Bretten Wood restablishing gold standard (however tenuous that was) showed.

Also, what made the post-WWII economic prosperity possible had little to do with expansion of government. The Truman administration shrank government. The West German government went even further unleashing the free market place.

1929-32 Hoover administration did not ""Purge the Rottenness out of the System by widespread unmitigated bankruptcies" like Mellon advised, and like Harding administration actually did in 1921-22 in the post-WWI contraction. What Hoover actually did was forming all sorts of government committees in an attempt to hold up price levels and prevent the market from clearing.

All Keynes introduced was simply a sleight-of-hand: reducing wages by debasing currency, not actually not reducing wages. LOL. Of course, once in practice, those in control of money printing found a handy tool in handing out money to their friends!

thunderlips11 says

Nope, you are only proving your own ignorance of what Praxeology is

Back at you. You are confusing Neoclassical Economics with Austrianism.

Hayek Said in Individualism and Economic Order (Page 73 if you're arsed to check):

(Economic Theory) can never be verified or falsified by reference to facts. All that we can and must verify is the presence of our assumptions in the particular case

Let me repeat that shit: can never be verified or falsified by reference to facts. That isn't the fucking scientific method, in the hard OR soft sciences. It's proof by (deductive) logic

I'm not confusing anything. "Scientific Method" as applied to hard sciences indeed does not apply to the "soft sciences, " which are not science at all, due to non-isolatability and non-repeatability.

Reality says

Fire Trucks usually pull up to non-burning houses due to all kinds of other "emergencies."

Your analysis is essentially application of a priori reasoning.

You can test this in the real world. Set fire to houses and see if the FD shows up. Monitor a whole neighborhood for a time and see how many times the FD shows up in the absence of burning homes.

Oh, and it won't be perfect, but you'll find that Fire Trucks and burning homes are closely correlated.

How do I test Austrian a priori premises and "discourse"?

Reality says

You are out of your mind if you think Keynes himself would endorse post-WWII expansion of government. Your writing goes to show that the bastardized Keynesians don't even understand what Keynesianism is.

Keynes called for spending in a Recession, tightening going into a boom. What he thought of the post-war expansion of prosperity we don't know, because he died in 1946.

Reality says

1929-32 Hoover administration did not ""Purge the Rottenness out of the System by widespread unmitigated bankruptcies" like Mellon advised, and like Harding administration actually did in 1921-22 in the post-WWI contraction. What Hoover actually did was forming all sorts of government committees in an attempt to hold up price levels and prevent the market from clearing.

It did nothing. As has been mentioned on this forum before - perhaps it was directed at Indigenous and not you - that those government-industry committees of Hoover were totally voluntary with no power to compel behavior. Hoover did nothing to prevent bank failures.

thunderlips11 says

Before Mises and his Praxeology, the study of economics was divided into two distinct fields: that of Micro Economics (which is based on individual rational decision making), and that of Macro Economics (which is based on (spurious) statistics). Praxeology is an effort at unifying the two separate areas of economic studies. What's becoming increasingly clear over time is that much of the so-called "Macro Economic" "rules" are little more than transient phenomena before people fully apply their rationality to changed circumstances.

Funny, I still see Intro to Micro and Intro to Macro courses taught in any university or college catalog I've ever looked at.

As you can see, without Praxeology, the two "separate" fields cause cognitive dissonance.

Why have Austrians been unable, with their flawless logic, to convince even a sizable minority of economists to adopt to any of their Praxeological ideas?

Why do Economists reject Austrianism? Why are Austrian-authored texts not found in fundamental econ classes? Conspiracy?

No conspiracy necessary: economists do not reject Austrianism per se. However, those want to take jobs at the FED and get paid well there tend not to embrace Austrianism. It's the same reason why those comrades who wanted to have a political career in the former USSR tended to study Marxism instead of other schools of philosophy or economics.

thunderlips11 says

You are out of your mind if you think hyper-inflation can be predicted with any regularity based on any theory

Then why do all the Austrians keep predicting it as an inevitable outcome of government (period, since Austrianism is an anarchist viewpoint)?

Inevitable does not mean at any specific time. Otherwise, it would not be "inevitable" in timing. LOL.

thunderlips11 says

Explain how praxeology is correct on this "Soft Social Phenomena". Examples please - examples that no other school of economics (or related fields) - could make.

Hmmm, can't make real world predictions. Won't measure much of anything. Insist their ideas are true based on "self-evident" premises.

Color me skeptical.

You are acting like the people who vehemently rejected Quantum Uncertainty nearly a century ago. Human social responses are not predictable for the simple reason that you are not smarter than everyone else combined and therefore unable to model the entirety of their possible thoughts and reactions. More people with knowledge like yours or mine may well affect the outcome of their choices. Observer having impact on the observed phenomenon!

Reality says

I'm not confusing anything. "Scientific Method" as applied to hard sciences indeed does not apply to the "soft sciences, " which are not science at all, due to non-isolatability and non-repeatability.

With respect, I call bullcrap.

From "Prax Girl", 30 second mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqGqx6fBts0

On the "Science" of Prax:

Unlike the sciences of chemistry or physics, when approaching human beings, praxeology has to employ a method of acquiring knowledge that does not rely on observation, but on discursive reasoning. Or we may say, logical deduction.

Right. No scientific method used in Psychology, never heard of any experiments used in that field.

circa 1:22:

The starting point of praxeology is the undeniable truth itself and a very easy one to remember: human action is purposeful behavior. It is from this undeniable fact that all of praxeology, as a science, is deduced. This fact, or axiom, is undeniable because, as we stated before, if you try to deny that human action is purposeful, you would be acting purposeful yourself.

I won't even nitpick this statement like "Is gagging when being waterboarded a purposeful behavior?"

That sounds like Medieval Theology.

Reality says

No conspiracy necessary: economists do not reject Austrianism per se. However, those want to take jobs at the FED and get paid well there tend not to embrace Austrianism. It's the same reason why those comrades who wanted to have a political career in the former USSR tended to study Marxism instead of other schools of philosophy or economics.

How about academia? How about real business? How come there are only a pitiful number of Austrians outside of privately-funded Think Tanks?

Reality says

Inevitable does not mean at any specific time. Otherwise, it would not be "inevitable" in timing. LOL.

So you agree with Marx about inevitable Communist Revolution? He didn't say when, just like the Austrians!

Of course Rothbard, Schiff, et al have implied hyperinflation is right around the corner, and did so for years and years.

Reality says

You are acting like the people who vehemently rejected Quantum Uncertainty nearly a century ago. Human social responses are not predictable for the simple reason that you are not smarter than everyone else combined and therefore unable to model the entirety of their possible thoughts and reactions. More people with knowledge like yours or mine may well affect the outcome of their choices. Observer having impact on the observed phenomenon!

Praxeology claims that human action is logical, universal, and self-interested. And therefore, conclusions can be drawn from it. And can't those conclusions can be used to make predictions, which come true?

Observation doesn't always interfere with the observed. Sometimes the observer impacts the observed phenomenon to an extant it changes the result. It's not really true that a watched pot doesn't boil, nor that my watching it effects when it boils.

thunderlips11 says

Keynes called for spending in a Recession, tightening going into a boom. What he thought of the post-war expansion of prosperity we don't know, because he died in 1946

Utter nonsense. We already knew what Keynes was doing in preparation for the end of WWII: Bretton Wood and gradual return to gold standard. Your utter failure at guessing what Keynes would have done in post-WWII goes to show that you don't even understand Keynesianism. What you have is a bastardized what-ever -ism that is anathema to anyone with a clue about economics.

thunderlips11 says

With respect, I call bullcrap.

That's because you are full of bull crap. Not surprising coming from a worshipper of a soviet butcher.

thunderlips11 says

Right. No scientific method used in Psychology, never heard of any experiments used in that field.

In case it is not obvious, Psychology is quite unlike hard science: its industrial practice is based on "consensus" in the book called "Diagnostic Statistical Manual." When was the last time you saw Physics explained like that? LOL.

Economics is even "softer" than Psychology: it would be like applying DSM on fellow Psychiatrists because every economist is a participant in the economy itself.

thunderlips11 says

Wow. Do these descriptions sound like science to you?

What's the surprise here? Economics is not a science, in the sense of hard science. Predicting human behavior is just like predicting stock futures: your pronounced prediction and its reaching audience may well affect the performance of the stock itself.

thunderlips11 says

Praxeology claims that human action is logical, universal, and self-interested. And therefore, conclusions can be drawn from it. And can't those conclusions can be used to make predictions, which come true?

No. Value are subjective, and limited by one's imperfect knowledge as well influenced by one's emotional state.

You guys however hold yourselves out as seers; how come you have been unable to make infallible predictions?

Observation doesn't always interfere with the observed. Sometimes the observer impacts the observed phenomenon to an extant it changes the result. It's not really true that a watched pot doesn't boil, nor that my watching it effects when it boils.

You are full of shit as usual. Read up on observation effect. It has nothing to do with pot of war or the pot that you are smoking. Try front run whatever stock you have the inside dib on, and see the result of your front-running.

thunderlips11 says

indigenous says

So once again you would like to dismiss mathematics as it too is a priori...

Is Euclidian Geometry a priori? How about non-Euclidian Geometry? Math just "is" - a priori or not.

(oh, and some things derived from Mathematical a priori reasoning don't exist in reality, like perfect circles)

"A Priori Knowledge

A Priori is a philosophical term that is used in several different ways. The term is suppose to mean knowledge that is gained through deduction, and not through empirical evidence. For instance, if I have two apples now, and I plan to add three apples, I will have five apples. This is knowledge gained deductively. I did not actually need to get the three other apples and place them with the first two to see that I have five. To this extent, the term A Priori is valid.

The problem, though, is that the word is used to describe something entirely different. It is used to describe knowledge that exists without reference to reality. One example is inborn knowledge. Another example often used is mathematics. To understand why this second definition, which is how the term is really used, is flawed, we have to look at exactly what is being said and meant.

Let's look at mathematics. It's easy to see, in the apple example above, that mathematics fits under first, valid meaning of the term. If this were all that was meant by saying that mathematics is a priori, there would be no problem. However, this isn't it. Philosophers then go on to say that mathematics is true without reference to reality. The knowledge of mathematics (as opposed to the knowledge created by mathematics) is a priori. It is known without reference to reality. It is claimed that mathematics is a higher form of knowledge. That even if the world around us doesn't exist, mathematics is still true. That it is a form of knowledge that we can be certain of, even if we deny reality.

How do they make such a statement? First, they see that mathematics is the science of units, and any units are acceptable. I could have said trucks instead of apples above. The validity would be the same. It is true without reference to any unit.

This sounds okay at first. The problem stems from the method of deriving the mathematical abstractions. Teach a child to do simple arithmetic, and you'll recognize that to gain the knowledge of math, one must use some units. Maybe apples. Maybe oranges. It doesn't matter which units. It does matter, though, that some unit is picked. To grasp math, one needs a foundation. Particulars from which an abstraction can be made.

Calling mathematics a priori, or knowledge independent of reality, is to undercut its base. This is the essence of the second meaning of a priori. The meaning that is actually used. An abstraction is made from particulars. Once the abstraction is made, the process from which it was derived is then ignored. The base on which it was built is denied. The abstract knowledge is then said to exist without reference to reality, since the reference is ignored.

In this way, certain kinds of knowledge are said to exist without being dependent on reality. Various explanations for how we are aware of the knowledge are put forward. Some say it is inborn, and we were always aware of it. Others say that although it was inborn, it takes awhile for us to recognize the knowledge. Others decide that it is revelation from some higher power.

The consequences to accepting the claim that knowledge can be a priori is that it leads to faith. When it is suppose that some knowledge exists and is valid without our need of deriving it from reality, it opens the door to pretending all knowledge can be like this. By denying the use of reason to form these abstract ideas, it claims there are alternative methods of gaining knowledge. By severing the tie to reality, it allows any idea to be accepted."

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_APriori.html

Lips before you blather on, that does not say that praxelogy is severing any ties to reality.

Reality says

The workers can only get a fair shake if there are multiple potential employees competing against each other for the worker.

Actually, that's not true. The solution I proposed does not require government or the owner to control the distribution of revenue from a business.

Also, under our current system there are not multiple potential employers competing for workers. There are few employers and they have a multitude of unfair advantages that make the worker have essentially zero bargaining power. And that is exactly the problem. A worker's compensation should be determined entirely by his productivity not his bargaining power.

Strategist says

You're wasting your time. I'm the only damn liberal who gets "it"

You are a liberal like the pope is a secret Muslim.

Strategist says

The Longshoremen get $150,000, but their employer only makes $50,000 profit from them.

That's not reality. In reality an employee generates $100,000/yr in wealth and the owner takes between $40,000 to $80,000 from that pot. If the worker is highly skilled, he's only taxed at 40% by the business owner, but if the worker is unskilled then he's taxed at 80%.

indigenous says

Dan if you write another book I will not respond, it takes too long to read your blather.

Translation: I'm way too unintelligent to come up with any kind of counterargument. Also, it doesn't help that Dan has the truth on his side and all the evidence supports the truth for some reason.

Honey, I spent the time to transcribe a large portion of the video. I also spent the time to analyze and clarify what it was saying and the time to prove that it was wrong using real evidence. What I wrote takes less time to read than the video takes to watch. So quite whining about how much work it takes to support your position. If your position isn't worth taking the time to defend, it's a weak position.

Strategist says

Dan, you need to post quality, not quantity.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. Furthermore, reading my response takes less time than watching the video. You are confusing your laziness and refusal to read with verboseness. My arguments are as concise and as short as they can be. If you think otherwise, feel free to show a shorter version of those arguments that do not diminish their specificness, detail, or completeness.

indigenous says

Oh hello Wogster yea I was AFK. But I'm back for a few minutes and will be happy to bitch slap you and the other mutts around the forum.

If you would spend half the time and effort attacking your opponents' arguments rather than them, well, you'd still lose because your position sucks, but at least it wouldn't be as humiliating of a defeat.