Environmental Protectionism

[Scheavo]

Mark Blaug has criticized over-reliance on methodological individualism, arguing it would rule out all macroeconomic propositions that cannot be reduced to microeconomic ones, and hence reject almost the whole of received macroeconomics.[90]

Hmm, that's exactly what I was starting to the get the impression of myself.

Seriously, how can anyone think a valid economic theory is one which denies scientific rigor? Aristotle had a very logical explanation for physics... he was just wrong. AE may have a very logical explanation for human interaction and the market, but it's just wrong.

[Orthogonal]

By that logic, can't a government be a voluntary association? Especially if it derives its sovereignty from popular consent.

Yes, it can be voluntary. The only problem is that you are subject to it long before any consent can be given. Everyone has to give explicit consent, and anyone who chooses not to give consent should be allowed to exclude themselves from it.

[Super Dude]

No one's stopping you doing that today.

[Orthogonal]

Mark Blaug has criticized over-reliance on methodological individualism, arguing it would rule out all macroeconomic propositions that cannot be reduced to microeconomic ones, and hence reject almost the whole of received macroeconomics.[90]

Hmm, that's exactly what I was starting to the get the impression of myself.

Seriously, how can anyone think a valid economic theory is one which denies scientific rigor? Aristotle had a very logical explanation for physics... he was just wrong. AE may have a very logical explanation for human interaction and the market, but it's just wrong.

Economics: The study of cause and effect with respect to human actions.

Economics is not subject to science because human action cannot be explained scientifically like the laws of physics. Humans are independent free thinkers. Unless you believe in determinism, you cannot make an argument  to apply science to economics.

No one's stopping you doing that today.

Just try to withdraw consent by not paying your taxes and see what happens.

[Super Dude]

That's not what I meant. I mean if you don't like our current government, you are free to go live somewhere else. Plus I don't know if you've ever heard of micronations? The Principality of Sealand comes to mind.

[Scheavo]

Mark Blaug has criticized over-reliance on methodological individualism, arguing it would rule out all macroeconomic propositions that cannot be reduced to microeconomic ones, and hence reject almost the whole of received macroeconomics.[90]

Hmm, that's exactly what I was starting to the get the impression of myself.

Seriously, how can anyone think a valid economic theory is one which denies scientific rigor? Aristotle had a very logical explanation for physics... he was just wrong. AE may have a very logical explanation for human interaction and the market, but it's just wrong.

Economics: The study of cause and effect with respect to human actions.

Economics is not subject to science because human action cannot be explained scientifically like the laws of physics. Humans are independent free thinkers. Unless you believe in determinism, you cannot make an argument  to apply science to economics.

Science is not physics, science is the scientific method. Science does not mean determinism either, as quantum mechanics is very very undeterministic.

So yes, I can apply science to economics, and no it does not require determinism, or the use of physics to explain it. Psychology has a lot of science behind it, a lot of studies, hypothesis, theories, tests, etc. but it does not deal with physics in the least.

Basically, what you're saying is, how things actually develop in the real world, is irrelevant.

There's so much wrong with what you just said that it really just blows my mind.

By that logic, can't a government be a voluntary association? Especially if it derives its sovereignty from popular consent.

Yes, it can be voluntary. The only problem is that you are subject to it long before any consent can be given. Everyone has to give explicit consent, and anyone who chooses not to give consent should be allowed to exclude themselves from it.

I guess we should stop people from having kids then, because having kids subjects them to something before they can give consent. The problem you point to is one of worldly necessity, and not something you or anyone else can get rid of. We are thrown into this world, we do not choose it.

[Super Dude]

Economics is a social science, and therefore a science.

[Orthogonal]

Science is not physics, science is the scientific method. Science does not mean determinism either, as quantum mechanics is very very undeterministic.

So yes, I can apply science to economics, and no it does not require determinism, or the use of physics to explain it. Psychology has a lot of science behind it, a lot of studies, hypothesis, theories, tests, etc. but it does not deal with physics in the least.

Basically, what you're saying is, how things actually develop in the real world, is irrelevant.

There's so much wrong with what you just said that it really just blows my mind.

I didn't mean to imply physics would have anything to do with economics to make it scientific. It means there is no objective truth or value that can be obtained from economics. It is purely subjective and value free. Application of the scientific method is meaningless.

I guess we should stop people from having kids then, because having kids subjects them to something before they can give consent. The problem you point to is one of worldly necessity, and not something you or anyone else can get rid of. We are thrown into this world, we do not choose it.

Irrelevent...

That's not what I meant. I mean if you don't like our current government, you are free to go live somewhere else. Plus I don't know if you've ever heard of micronations? The Principality of Sealand comes to mind.

If I'm not free to live where I am now on my own property without coercion, then it is not a voluntary association.

[Super Dude]

I think living there counts as consent.

[Scheavo]

Science is not physics, science is the scientific method. Science does not mean determinism either, as quantum mechanics is very very undeterministic.

So yes, I can apply science to economics, and no it does not require determinism, or the use of physics to explain it. Psychology has a lot of science behind it, a lot of studies, hypothesis, theories, tests, etc. but it does not deal with physics in the least.

Basically, what you're saying is, how things actually develop in the real world, is irrelevant.

There's so much wrong with what you just said that it really just blows my mind.

I didn't mean to imply physics would have anything to do with economics to make it scientific. It means there is no objective truth or value that can be obtained from economics. It is purely subjective and value free. Application of the scientific method is meaningless.

If there are not objective truths, then why do you think AE is true?

There are objective truths to be obtained from economics, people have done it, and you simply ignore / deny that it's done. Science cannot apply to metaphysics, but economics is not metaphysical.

Something being subjective makes it value laden, not value free. Quantum Mechanics, as we currently understand it, is highly perspective / subjective to a degree, yet that doesn't stop it form being true.

I guess we should stop people from having kids then, because having kids subjects them to something before they can give consent. The problem you point to is one of worldly necessity, and not something you or anyone else can get rid of. We are thrown into this world, we do not choose it.

Irrelevent...

Ya, I know.. the truth is constantly irrelevant to you. Science is irrelevant. Facts of life are  irrelevant. Unless you agree with it, it's irrelevant.

That's not what I meant. I mean if you don't like our current government, you are free to go live somewhere else. Plus I don't know if you've ever heard of micronations? The Principality of Sealand comes to mind.

If I'm not free to live where I am now on my own property without coercion, then it is not a voluntary association.

You are free to choose where you live, therefor you choose the coercion that comes along with your property.

[Orthogonal]

If there are not objective truths, then why do you think AE is true?

There are objective truths to be obtained from economics, people have done it, and you simply ignore / deny that it's done. Science cannot apply to metaphysics, but economics is not metaphysical.

Something being subjective makes it value laden, not value free. Quantum Mechanics, as we currently understand it, is highly perspective / subjective to a degree, yet that doesn't stop it form being true.

There are lots of objective truths that can be obtained scientifically, human valuation is just not one of them and thus economics with it. A rock exists and is objective, independent of what anyone says or does. With regards to Quantum, a quantum particle is objective, but due to the process of measurement our ability to determine it's properties is undeterministic, that does not mean that independent of our observations it is undeterministic.

You are free to choose where you live, therefor you choose the coercion that comes along with your property.

You cannot choose coercion by definition.

[Scheavo]

If there are not objective truths, then why do you think AE is true?

There are objective truths to be obtained from economics, people have done it, and you simply ignore / deny that it's done. Science cannot apply to metaphysics, but economics is not metaphysical.

Something being subjective makes it value laden, not value free. Quantum Mechanics, as we currently understand it, is highly perspective / subjective to a degree, yet that doesn't stop it form being true.

There are lots of objective truths that can be obtained scientifically, human valuation is just not one of them and thus economics with it. A rock exists and is objective, independent of what anyone says or does. With regards to Quantum, a quantum particle is objective, but due to the process of measurement our ability to determine it's properties is undeterministic, that does not mean that independent of our observations it is undeterministic.

Humans, individually, may be hard to know... but as a group, as a mass, we can be fairly sure of what's going to go on. Just like we may not know exactly where the electron or the atom is in a baseball, but we know very very well where that baseball is going to be. Individually, we are free; collectively, we are not.

I mean, you basically contradict yourself in saying that human valuation is uncertain, because all of AE relies upon the idea of what humans value; i.e greed. Human valuation has been studied scientifically, laws and rules have been discovered, and you can't just deny them becuase you want to. YOu say that economics relates to cause and effect; that means we can scientifically examine those cause's and effects. A hypothesis is put forward regarding the effect of a certain cause; experiments are ran, and the effects are studies; from these results, we can examine the original hypothesis and see how well it explains the actual effects seen. This is what people have done, and it is what you just ignore/deny based upon some flimsy philosophical assumption. Humans are objective things, I am made up of objective reality; my actions create objective events which can be studied and examined.

And you cant say that the Heisenberg uncertainty is a problem of the process of measurement; it's a limit of what we can measure, and of what we can know, meaning from what we know, it can be a fundamental aspect of reality. For all we know, without conscious awareness of the universe, the universe would not be in the sense that we know it. This does not meant that the world is undeterministic, it says that from what we know at the moment, we cannot say that the world is not undeterministic, nor we can we say that it is undeterministic. You go beyond the epistemological horizon which we can scientifically know, meaning you no longer accurately describe science and what it portends to know. 

[Orthogonal]

I mean, you basically contradict yourself in saying that human valuation is uncertain, because all of AE relies upon the idea of what humans value; i.e greed. Human valuation has been studied scientifically, laws and rules have been discovered, and you can't just deny them becuase you want to. YOu say that economics relates to cause and effect; that means we can scientifically examine those cause's and effects. A hypothesis is put forward regarding the effect of a certain cause; experiments are ran, and the effects are studies; from these results, we can examine the original hypothesis and see how well it explains the actual effects seen. This is what people have done, and it is what you just ignore/deny based upon some flimsy philosophical assumption. Humans are objective things, I am made up of objective reality; my actions create objective events which can be studied and examined.

I never claimed human valuation is uncertain, only that it is subjective. AE is predicated on humans acting purposefully on their preferences to achieve their ends. To illustrate what I mean by valuation. Two people could say they value pizza. How can you objectively determine which person values pizza more. To be objective, you can't rely on their own testimony. You would have to develop an extrinsic standard or metric with which to compare them (What are the units of value?). One person may be willing to pay more money than the other, but that is only because they have the means to do it. It still does not establish who values something more. It is completely subjective and there is no way to compare the two.

What scientific "laws and rules" have been discovered regarding economics. By all means, please share them.

[Scheavo]

What scientific "laws and rules" have been discovered regarding economics. By all means, please share them.

Things like aggregate demand, the law of diminishing return, how the business cycle operates, how money is created, how wealth is created. I'm not going to explain all of economic theory to you. Go to a college campus, take an economics course.

[Orthogonal]

What scientific "laws and rules" have been discovered regarding economics. By all means, please share them.

Things like aggregate demand, the law of diminishing return, how the business cycle operates, how money is created, how wealth is created. I'm not going to explain all of economic theory to you. Go to a college campus, take an economics course.

I'm willing to bet I've studied more economics than you, and all those phenomena are addressed in AE, and they are all outcomes of subjective human valuation.


EDIT: All the things you listed are concepts or ideas. Concepts and ideas are human constructions. Science is about the study of physical objects and nature. Philosophy is the study of concepts and ideas. Thus, economics falls under philosophy, not science.

[jsem]

I mean, to illustrate a point for further discussion, take value theory. Why does a certain object have a value?
How can that question be addressed using only empirical evidence? Is it not a question of philosophy? T

[Scheavo]

Science is about the study of physical objects and nature.

No, science is the scientific method. If anything happens within the physical universe, it is possible for science to speak of the matter. Scientifically, economics has done a lot, and the fact that you just disavow it for some philosophical reasons doesn't mean that the methods employed are not scientific. There have been scientific studies which look at those things I mentioned, and they're the reason why those things are treated the way they are in economics courses.

How can that question be addressed using only empirical evidence? Is it not a question of philosophy? T

Because the science of economics isn't giving a value to an object, it's describing the human interaction, which is objective, surrounding the value of those objects. Yes, if you want to start talking about why a certain objective is given some value, that is philosophical. If you want to start talking about how people interact with those objects, how they trade those objects, and how the sum of all those interactions mash up, then you're talking scientific theory.

Basically, you guys are looking at the issue on a micro level. It would be like saying we don't know where a baseball is going to be because we don't know where each individual atom is going to be. But we DO know where the baseball is going to be, even though we don't know where the individual atoms that make up that baseball are going to be, or hell, IF they're going to "be." Macroeconomics is a field which deals with, well, these macro issues.

For instance, the concept of aggregate demand, and it's effect on an economy, is not value laden. There is no "object" by which we are questioning it's value. It's a phenomenon, from which we can question it's cause's and effects. Through analysis, we've learned that when there isn't sufficient demand in a market place, then the market place suffers. This has nothing to do with value, it is an object occurrence which we can objectively examine. Keynesianism came to be accepted because it was able to describe the market that people were seeing, and produce effects that it promised to bring; this theory is reproducible, and looks at objective facts.

No one is saying science can objectively ascribe value to an object; we're saying science can objectively examine the market, and the effects of human interaction. Psychology uses the scientific method, but it deals with something which is very unquantifiable, and subjective, but that does not mean that psychology is unscientific.

*edit*

EDIT: All the things you listed are concepts or ideas. Concepts and ideas are human constructions. Science is about the study of physical objects and nature. Philosophy is the study of concepts and ideas. Thus, economics falls under philosophy, not science.

Everything we can imagine is a concept or idea. Atoms are concepts or idea's. Protons are concepts and idea's. If science can't deal with concepts and idea's, then science can't study anything, which is so clearly false that it's not worth arguing against.

[Super Dude]

Science is about the study of physical objects and nature.

No, science is the scientific method. If anything happens within the physical universe, it is possible for science to speak of the matter. Scientifically, economics has done a lot, and the fact that you just disavow it for some philosophical reasons doesn't mean that the methods employed are not scientific. There have been scientific studies which look at those things I mentioned, and they're the reason why those things are treated the way they are in economics courses.

This. Francis Bacon for reference.

[rumborak]

Thus, economics falls under philosophy, not science.

I find it disturbing that the Libertarian movement has managed to convince individuals like you of this notion, that Economics have to be approached like philosophy. Because, as I said, it then becomes a religion, and that's exactly how I see Libertarians treating it. Dogmatic and impervious to empirical validation.
It's also the reason why AE didn't survive the 20th century. It was a neat theoretical framework but failed to explain the available data. And any theory that tries to make predictions needs to be tested against its predictions.

rumborak

[Orthogonal]

EDIT: All the things you listed are concepts or ideas. Concepts and ideas are human constructions. Science is about the study of physical objects and nature. Philosophy is the study of concepts and ideas. Thus, economics falls under philosophy, not science.

Everything we can imagine is a concept or idea. Atoms are concepts or idea's. Protons are concepts and idea's. If science can't deal with concepts and idea's, then science can't study anything, which is so clearly false that it's not worth arguing against.

An atom is an idea? A Proton is an idea? I don't think you understand the ramifications of what you just said. No, an atom or proton is a physical object. We may not be able to fully explain what it is, but objectively, it is a physical object that exists independent of what we think it is. If it is an idea, then all of theoretical physics is metaphysical. If it is not dealing with real objects, then it is not science. Taking an idea or concept and treating it like a real object is a fallacy called reification.

Thus, economics falls under philosophy, not science.

I find it disturbing that the Libertarian movement has managed to convince individuals like you of this notion, that Economics have to be approached like philosophy. Because, as I said, it then becomes a religion, and that's exactly how I see Libertarians treating it. Dogmatic and impervious to empirical validation.
It's also the reason why AE didn't survive the 20th century. It was a neat theoretical framework but failed to explain the available data. And any theory that tries to make predictions needs to be tested against its predictions.

rumborak

I'm not sure why it is so hard to accept. What you believe and desire can change on a whim. It cannot be explained scientifically. Any theory of economics that is not based on subjective personal preference has no basis to stand on.

[rumborak]

So, as somebody earlier pointed out, to you social sciences are actually philosophies?

A theory of economics does not *necessarily* need to incorporate subjectivity. Just like a theory of the behavior of flowing water doesn't need to consider ever single water molecule to arrive at useful and accurate predictions.
But, modern Economics does indeed try to model subjective actions of individuals through computer simulations. The results it arrives at contradicts a lot of predictions of AE.

rumborak

[jsem]

I find it disturbing that the Libertarian movement has managed to convince individuals like you of this notion

The entire libertarian movement isn't dedicated to this type of methodology. Ever heard of the Chicago school?

[rumborak]

I have not, no. Care to elaborate on it?

rumborak

[Orthogonal]

So, as somebody earlier pointed out, to you social sciences are actually philosophies?

A theory of economics does not *necessarily* need to incorporate subjectivity. Just like a theory of the behavior of flowing water doesn't need to consider ever single water molecule to arrive at useful and accurate predictions.
But, modern Economics does indeed try to model subjective actions of individuals through computer simulations. The results it arrives at contradicts a lot of predictions of AE.

rumborak

Social Science is a bit of a misnomer. It is a term used as an umbrella for numerous fields. Some social sciences deal exclusively with idea's like politics, linguistics, law etc, and are not really sciences at all because the scientific method does not apply. Other social sciences are a bit of a hybrid like anthropology and psychology because there is some interdisceplenary aspects with biology and chemistry.

Computer simulations are only approximations and do not reflect true reality. They may be "close enough" for certain things, but they are never a substitute for the real thing. What simulations are you referring to that contradict AE?

[Super Dude]

So, as somebody earlier pointed out, to you social sciences are actually philosophies?

A theory of economics does not *necessarily* need to incorporate subjectivity. Just like a theory of the behavior of flowing water doesn't need to consider ever single water molecule to arrive at useful and accurate predictions.
But, modern Economics does indeed try to model subjective actions of individuals through computer simulations. The results it arrives at contradicts a lot of predictions of AE.

rumborak

Social Science is a bit of a misnomer. It is a term used as an umbrella for numerous fields. Some social sciences deal exclusively with idea's like politics, linguistics, law etc, and are not really sciences at all because the scientific method does not apply. Other social sciences are a bit of a hybrid like anthropology and psychology because there is some interdisceplenary aspects with biology and chemistry.

Computer simulations are only approximations and do not reflect true reality. They may be "close enough" for certain things, but they are never a substitute for the real thing. What simulations are you referring to that contradict AE?

Yes it does, especially in political science. Maybe not in political theory, but absolutely in political science.

[jsem]

I have not, no. Care to elaborate on it?

rumborak

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-IHedwT0lk

Not an extremely long video, and no, Hayek is not part of the Chicago school - though he taught there. They don't look to praxeology for their answers though, they look to empirical evidence. The biggest distinction between the two schools, the other being monetary policy.

[Scheavo]

EDIT: All the things you listed are concepts or ideas. Concepts and ideas are human constructions. Science is about the study of physical objects and nature. Philosophy is the study of concepts and ideas. Thus, economics falls under philosophy, not science.

Everything we can imagine is a concept or idea. Atoms are concepts or idea's. Protons are concepts and idea's. If science can't deal with concepts and idea's, then science can't study anything, which is so clearly false that it's not worth arguing against.

An atom is an idea? A Proton is an idea? I don't think you understand the ramifications of what you just said. No, an atom or proton is a physical object. We may not be able to fully explain what it is, but objectively, it is a physical object that exists independent of what we think it is. If it is an idea, then all of theoretical physics is metaphysical. If it is not dealing with real objects, then it is not science. Taking an idea or concept and treating it like a real object is a fallacy called reification.

An atom is most certainly a concept, it took people years to develop the idea fully. Yes, the idea comes from something we can point to, something we can scientifically examine, but that does not mean that an atom is not an idea, or a concept. What "atoms" really are, are not what we conceptualize them as, and the fact that science is constantly rewriting this issue only demonstrates that fact.

What you seem to be doing is thinking that saying something is a concept means that that thing does not exist in the real world. Which is just false. Our conceptions of reality change how reality appears to us, it changes how we experience it. When we we look for particles in nature, we find particles. If we look for energistic waves of energy, we find energisitic waves of energy. Wave-particle duality should tell us a thing or two about how falsely we interpret the "world," and how whatever the "world" is, it is most certainly not our direct experience of it. Each and every one of us experiences our own World, we live in our own Worlds. If you didn't know what a chair was, had never seen a chair, you wouldn't see a chair when presented with what we know as a chair. The fact that you know what a chair is, have a word and a conception for it, have experience of sitting in a chair, fundamentally affects how you view that physical object you are presented with in a chair. *edit* What I'm saying is that, in order to experience something, you need an appropriate conception of that thing. Philosophy jumps ahead of the sciences, discloses a field of reality, by which science can then examine said field. Heiddegarian phenomenology, which has been rather robust in it's scientific rigour, and ability to lead the sciences to a more accurate understanding of relaity, our consciousness, and what it means to be.

Aggregate demand is a concept, but there have been studies, and scientific ones, which examine the issue, and the result is the modern theory of aggregate demand, who it works in an economy, and why it works in an economy. Aggregate demand has nothing to do with subjective valuation, it is fully examinable by science in terms of it's effects on an economy.