tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post8690587231000591666..comments2024-03-18T06:41:03.841-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: In which Mises demonstrates that he does not understand externalities or the arguments of economists who talk about externalitiesEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-90216198680913728702010-09-03T18:17:09.310-04:002010-09-03T18:17:09.310-04:00I'm assuming by "classical liberal" ...I'm assuming by "classical liberal" and "pro-market" you mean libertarian, right?<br /><br />Your comment actually reminds me of one thing I have definitely appreciated about Mises - I'll blog on it tomorrow.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-13642517392254277332010-09-03T14:00:40.596-04:002010-09-03T14:00:40.596-04:00For example:
Mises claims that "fundamental ...For example:<br /><br />Mises claims that "fundamental logical relations are not subject to proof or disproof" because "every attempt to prove them must presuppose their validity." Yet elsewhere he states that "dedutive [reasoning] ... cannot produce anything else but tautologies and analytic judgments. <i>All its implications are logically derived from the premises and were already contained in them.</i>" (italics mine).<br /><br />By "are not subject to proof", Mises presumably means that one cannot convince someone who objects to "fundamental logical relations" with with an argument which must necessarily presuppose such relations. The comment that follows certainly suggest that "proof" here means something like "capacity to convince". Mises states: it is "impossible to explain [fundamental logical relations] to a being who would not posses them on his own account."<br /><br />However, according to Mises's own account of deductive reasoning, all proofs must pressuppose whatever they seek to prove. So it appears there can be no proof or disproof of antyhing. Mises then cements the confusion: "efforts to define [fundamental logical relations] according to the rules of definition must fail. They are primary propositions antecedent to any nominal or real definition. They are ultimate unanalyzable categories."<br /><br />The validity of "fundamental logical relations" is provable, at least in the logical sense, precisely <i>because</i> the validity is already assumed in some premises -- that's just how logical proofs work! Mises's error seems to be a confusion of these two common meanings of "proof," when really they have not all that much to do with each other: identifying them as one and the same to produces many paradoxes.<br /><br />I don't know what to make of all this. Mises makes some exceptional claims about praxeology, and attempts to place it on par with pure logical and mathematical analysis. But Mises is confusing and misleading, and he leaves me feeling quite suspicious of his understanding of such matters.Lee Kellyhttp://www.criticalrationalism.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-5960303592446740222010-09-03T13:27:15.728-04:002010-09-03T13:27:15.728-04:00One things that really bugs me is that Mises's...One things that really bugs me is that Mises's use of technical terms like "proof" and "tautology" is inconsistent and misleading.<br /><br />The term "proof has a precise meaning in the context of logic: a sequence of valid inferences from premises to conclusion. It is an abstract thing. A proof may exist that is never discovered, or a proof may be practically impossible to demonstrate.<br /><br />An informal use of the term "proof" is to describe an argument that convinces or compels someone to accept the conclusion. The command or challenge to "prove it!" is usually meant in this socio-argumentative context.<br /><br />Much of the time, confusing these different types of "proof" is harmless, and it is clear why the two concepts are often entangled in peoples' minds. But there are important differences.<br /><br />A logical proof offers no more reason to accept its conclusion than to reject its premises: <i>a proof merely describes logical relations</i>. The matter of accepting or rejecting a conclusion or whether an argument is convincing or compelling are mostly psychological issues which have nothing to do with the proof itself.<br /><br />A logical proof is truth-preserving <i>only</i> if it is entirely or partially circular. However, assuming one's conclusion, implicitly or explicitly, when trying to convince someone of an argument's conclusion is considered an error in most socio-argumentative contexts (i.e. begging the question).<br /><br />That Mises appears to not make this distinction in places is rather disconcerting. His claims regarding the rigourous, logical, formal, and precise nature of praxeology are not particularly persuasive next to rather elementary confusion regarding the use of terms like "proof".Lee Kellyhttp://www.criticalrationalism.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-86716944741621498932010-09-03T12:10:40.812-04:002010-09-03T12:10:40.812-04:00I want to like Mises: he is admired by many who I ...I want to like Mises: he is admired by many who I admire; and I appreciate the Mises Institute.<br /><br />However, I just don't "get it". I have tried to read <i>Human Action</i> about half a dozen times. Each time I am dissapointed, frustrated, and ultimately bored. The first 100-150 pages are really quite bad, in my opinon. After that it gets better, but there is little novel or insightful in Mises's writings.<br /><br />Mises had some good ideas, and I intend to finish <i>Human Action</i>. But I just don’t think he <i>the</i> great economist: I completely fail to understand why anyone would hold him in such high regard.Lee Kellyhttp://www.criticalrationalism.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-37980860036373026562010-09-03T10:07:37.887-04:002010-09-03T10:07:37.887-04:00"I have no inclination at all to read one of ..."I have no inclination at all to read one of Mises's books..."<br /><br />You could always listen to one of them on your commute, morning run, whatever. FEE has a number of his books available for free download as I recall. Not everyone is into that sort of thing, but it is easier than trying to pick through Mises' less than clear prose. <br /><br />The thing I like about Mises is the whole sovereignty of the consumer idea. <br /><br />Anyway, if you just want to read something by Mises I would recommend this partly because it has the virtue of being rather short: http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Mises09.pdfXenophonhttp://myob.myob.myob.myob.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-62648875382298812892010-09-03T07:36:26.995-04:002010-09-03T07:36:26.995-04:00I'd like to read the original Mises piece befo...I'd like to read the original Mises piece before I try and comment. (Hopefully get some time tonight...)<br /><br />However, as a general observation about (some) Austrians' approach to externalities, I'll quickly offer the following parallel: http://madeinpain.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/56_the_first_rule.jpg<br />(Substitute in "externalities" where appropriate...)stickmannoreply@blogger.com