If Racism is Bad…

[Beskar]

Don't have to be all Papewaioist on us.

[Fragony]

You guys are suffering from ismism.

Oh I like, nothing is ever well defined. It's always more complicated.

[Fisherking]

lol, you just linked a Murray Rothbard essay...

Yes! On the State.

lol, no.

Mathematical modelling and empirical data are absolutely fundamental to all sane economists. The Austrian school explicitly refuses to provide empirical data to back up their claims. As such, it is little more than wishful thinking. They want things to be true, therefore they must be true.

Your Arrogance is amazing!

The man has several PhDs from THE top universities and has worked and taught in the field for over 35 years.

I assume this is your internet persona speaking, or would you really presume to lecture the Dalai Lama on spiritual matters, or your surgeon on his procedural techniques?


He is not an Austrian but still thinks the method unreliable. I’ll let him know you disapprove. We’ll see if it changes his mind.

[HoreTore]

Yes! On the State.

The Austrian school is heavily concerned with the role of the state.

Your Arrogance is amazing!

The man has several PhDs from THE top universities and has worked and taught in the field for over 35 years.

I assume this is your internet persona speaking, or would you really presume to lecture the Dalai Lama on spiritual matters, or your surgeon on his procedural techniques?

He is not an Austrian but still thinks the method unreliable. I’ll let him know you disapprove. We’ll see if it changes his mind.

So does Friedrich Hayek and Karl Marx, who I will not hesitate to call idiots.

Let me know when you have something other than an appeal to authority.

[Fisherking]

The Austrian school is heavily concerned with the role of the state.



So does Friedrich Hayek and Karl Marx, who I will not hesitate to call idiots.

Let me know when you have something other than an appeal to authority.

Education: that which reveals to the wise,
and conceals from the stupid,
the vast limits of their knowledge.
Mark Twain

I guess we know where you stand.

[HoreTore]

Education: that which reveals to the wise,
and conceals from the stupid,
the vast limits of their knowledge.
Mark Twain

I guess we know where you stand.

Goebbels had a phd from a renowned university; I guess he was right then.

EDIT: Wikipedia has some solid writing for once, an excellent summary of the nonsense that is praxeology(from Rothbard's wiki page):

Rothbard rejected the application of the scientific method to economics, and dismissed econometrics, empirical and statistical analysis, and other tools of mainstream social science as useless for the study of economics.[47] He instead embraced praxeology, the strictly a priori methodology of Ludwig von Mises. Praxeology conceives of economic laws as akin to geometric or mathematical axioms: fixed, unchanging, objective, and discernible through logical reasoning, without the use of any evidence.

Summed up in two words:

Wishful thinking.



The term "economic law" always makes me chuckle.

[Greyblades]

Oh dear, I appear to have broken Fisherking's mind.

[Fisherking]

Goebbels had a phd from a renowned university; I guess he was right then.

EDIT: Wikipedia has some solid writing for once, an excellent summary or the nonsense that is praxeology(from Rothbard's wiki page):



Summed up in two words:

Wishful thinking.



The term "economic law" always makes me chuckle.

Oh dear, I appear to have broken Fisherking's mind.

I don’t think you have the depth in economics to say he is wrong. It is also something I know RL to be a fact and not internet posturing.

So far all I see Grayblades doing is criticizing what is said without saying anything else in particular. Only opinion.

As close as it comes to recommended government is the Roman Empire. For all that is revealed he could be a 20somthing with an inflated ego.

The forum is only diversion. Offering our opinions will not change the world. It is a ,mostly, pleasant diversion and while we disagree today we may make common cause tomorrow on a different topic.

It is just not something I take too seriously.

In the meantime I do like exploring different points of view, so how about telling about your opinions rather than only saying mine are wrong. Disagreement is not evidence of error.

[HoreTore]

The world of economics certainly has the depth of knowledge to call Rothbard a tard; and it does. He has a grand total of zero published works, and he was relegated to an irrelevant institution(the glorious university of Nevada). The reason is simple; the world of economics does not consider his ideas to have any merit at all.

[Fisherking]

The world of economics certainly has the depth of knowledge to call Rothbard a tard; and it does. He has a grand total of zero published works, and he was relegated to an irrelevant institution(the glorious university of Nevada). The reason is simple; the world of economics does not consider his ideas to have any merit at all.

Not true. He has a large quantity of published works, just all published by the Austrians. lol

His economics were of little concern to me, however. It was primarily the essay on the State, which I find to be a truism, and one way to look at it. A very critical way, of course. Most of the rest I find fairly cracked. A small amount of what he say on war I can agree with.

I tend to weigh individual ideas by there own merit rather than looking at the man. At least initially.

Most anyone can have a flash of brilliance regardless of how pedestrian or even wrongheaded the rest of what they may say is.

One may adopt one principal without adopting the whole of an ideology.

I don’t fear being colored by the examination of a particular cause by looking at its parts. Pure democracy might prove very authoritarian but allowing someone choice and casting a vote is not tyrannical. Collectivism may be bad in some areas yet desirable in others. An enemy’s tactics may be sound even if you disagree on his philosophy and motives.

If you ever believe I except everything someone say because I link to it, you are very much mistaken. It is only the one idea I offer and who said it is immaterial to me.

[HoreTore]

Not true. He has a large quantity of published works, just all published by the Austrians.

....which means he is unpublished.

His 'contributions' on the role of the state follow the same methodology as his economic 'work', meaning it is nonsense.

The only reason you favour his essay is because he shares your ideology.

[Fisherking]

....which means he is unpublished.

His 'contributions' on the role of the state follow the same methodology as his economic 'work', meaning it is nonsense.

The only reason you favour his essay is because he shares your ideology.

You seem to be very much a closed and narrow minded person HT.

Some people can see both sides of an argument. Some, you, cannot. Your loss.

[HoreTore]

You seem to be very much a closed and narrow minded person HT.

Some people can see both sides of an argument. Some, you, cannot. Your loss.

Relevant linky.

I am perfectly open to all approaches following the scientific method. I discard any approach that does not.

[Fisherking]

Relevant linky.

I am perfectly open to all approaches following the scientific method. I discard any approach that does not.

LOL more arrogant close-mindedness.

Science for the most part is only theory. A best guess as to how things work. Close-minded intellectuals will hold on to a theory and not examine evidence that would upset their paradigm.

This has been demonstrated many times. Usually only after all the parties concerned are dead will one or two brave souls reexamine what has been rejected do they ever find their error

There are also the arts and the soft sciences. There is a great deal which cannot be proven mathematically. What a narrow world you live in.

[HoreTore]

LOL more arrogant close-mindedness.

Science for the most part is only theory. A best guess as to how things work. Close-minded intellectuals will hold on to a theory and not examine evidence that would upset their paradigm.

This has been demonstrated many times. Usually only after all the parties concerned are dead will one or two brave souls reexamine what has been rejected do they ever find their error

There are also the arts and the soft sciences. There is a great deal which cannot be proven mathematically. What a narrow world you live in.

The bolded part is hilarious.

The Austrian school is founded on the principle that they should never even look for evidence supporting their theories, as they believe such evidence do not exist. This is the reason why I disregard their theories. I only pay attention to those who actually seek evidence, preferably seeking a theory after finding evidence and not the other way around.

Just how you managed to get the scientific method to mean only mathematical modelling is beyond me, the only explanation I can find is that you do not really understand what the scientific method actually is.

[Beskar]

LOL more arrogant close-mindedness.

Science for the most part is only theory. A best guess as to how things work. Close-minded intellectuals will hold on to a theory and not examine evidence that would upset their paradigm.

This has been demonstrated many times. Usually only after all the parties concerned are dead will one or two brave souls reexamine what has been rejected do they ever find their error

There are also the arts and the soft sciences. There is a great deal which cannot be proven mathematically. What a narrow world you live in.

Scientific Method are a set of rules, methodology and analysis which aim to prevent misleading and biased results. It is used in Art, History, Sociology and many of the things you suggest it is not involved in. It concerns itself with things such as primarily and secondary sources (in History), the styles and authenticity in Art, Sociology whilst a 'soft science' follows the method as much as possible for validity in their statements. There are some limitations to its usage, as there is no need for a photographer to explain why his picture is 'good' unless he wanted to analyse it.

So HoreTore is actually discussing is how the Austrian School has no validity or evidence in their arguments and describing it as a jerk-circle of people who agree with each other but have nothing to back it up. He then says this is why they are rarely featured in any economic journals except mentioned in a criticism of their theory with people pointing out the flaws. Almost a cult/self-styled religion/ideology.

The way to counter him would to be to show studies with good methodology and sources.

Here is a quoted brief by what is meant by the Scientific Method.

- Hypotheses should be falsifiable, that is, they should be presented in such a way that they can be tested. They are more acceptable as explanations to the extent that they survive repeated attempts to prove them false. Hypotheses are not expected to be proven true; they are inferences that simply have not yet been proved false though not through want of trying.

- Observations, including results of experiments, must be reproducible by other researchers.

- Theories and results of experiments must be openly published in sufficient detail to be testable.

- Theories and results of experiments must be free of obvious internal contradictions.

- Must be willing to follow the data where it leads, rather than bending the evidence to fit some preconceived rationale.

- Hypotheses should not include explanations that are unique to a particular event or factors that are not part of observed nature

[Fragony]

Can I call myself a Kenyian if I support brken skull theory

[Fisherking]

Scientific Method are a set of rules, methodology and analysis which aim to prevent misleading and biased results. It is used in Art, History, Sociology and many of the things you suggest it is not involved in. It concerns itself with things such as primarily and secondary sources (in History), the styles and authenticity in Art, Sociology whilst a 'soft science' follows the method as much as possible for validity in their statements. There are some limitations to its usage, as there is no need for a photographer to explain why his picture is 'good' unless he wanted to analyse it.

So HoreTore is actually discussing is how the Austrian School has no validity or evidence in their arguments and describing it as a jerk-circle of people who agree with each other but have nothing to back it up. He then says this is why they are rarely featured in any economic journals except mentioned in a criticism of their theory with people pointing out the flaws. Almost a cult/self-styled religion/ideology.

The way to counter him would to be to show studies with good methodology and sources.

Here is a quoted brief by what is meant by the Scientific Method.

I am perfectly aware of the scientific theory and how it works. I even use it. However, HT is prone to limiting himself with what he believes to be the whole truth and ignoring (refusing to examine) all else.

I have not defended Austrian theory. I have not looked into it. It is a red herring in this argument.

Concepts are much more difficult to cite studies or experimental data for. How does one scientifically quantify philosophy or a set of ideas.

It was also to challenge that only the consensus of scientific thought can be correct. Clearly it can hold beliefs that are wrong. Ridicule is their weapon of choice.

Examples of rejected theories which later gained acceptance: ulcers caused by bacteria, and not stress, neurogenesis, continental drift, and quark theory, just to name a few.

Would you believe that no currently rejected theories, or future rejected theories will gain wide acceptance?

Just to get back to HT’s assertion that Austrian economics can offer nothing because they don’t predict using the scientific method, therefore it is bunk. I have not looked into but their rejection of a particular tool for a particular reason does not invalidate everything else.

It is an argument akin to refusing to let a mechanic work on your car because he doesn’t use adjustable wrenches. He may have, and does, have valid reasons not to do so but in not understanding the why you would never know what they were.

The ready use of ridicule, to me, appears as a shield hiding ignorance of the specifics.

[HoreTore]

However, HT is prone to limiting himself with what he believes to be the whole truth and ignoring (refusing to examine) all else.

What an extreme, unfounded and ridiculous claim.


Though an extremely common one among conspiracy theorists, zealots and fanatics.

EDIT: Anyway, I have read through Rothbard's essay found here (learn to use text sources instead of videos, ye heretic). It is predictable in its content entirely in line with Austrian economics, and just as unfounded. In essence, it's page after page of "the state is a thief, wa wa wa"-whining. Of course written in Austrian school lingo, with terms like "predator", "taxation is a crime", "parasitic caste" and so.

While most of it is deeply obscurantist he does make some claims one can verify. Like this one:

If the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries were, in many countries of the West, times of accelerating social power, and a corollary increase in freedom, peace, and material welfare, the twentieth century has been primarily an age in which State power has been catching up?with a consequent reversion to slavery, war, and destruction.[43]

So, to take two points, he asserts that the start of the industrial revolution increased the general material welfare and that the 20th century has seen an increase in war.

Unfortunately for him, neither is true.

The start of the industrial revolution saw a marked decline in living standards and life expectancy, as people were bused from relatively good lives in the countryside, to overcrowded cities with enormous problems. It took quite a while for life expectancy to catch up to pre-17th century standards.

Wars, on the other hand, have decreased in the 20th century and are rarer now than they were in the 18th(or whatever) century. See for example Steven Pinker for this(though he deals with crime as well as war). Added to this is the fact that most of the wars of the 20th century have been caused by cleaning up the mess left by Rothbard's 'golden age of increasing freedom', colonization.



But don't let those silly fact-thingies get in the way of ideological blindness.

[Fisherking]

What an extreme, unfounded and ridiculous claim.


Though an extremely common one among conspiracy theorists, zealots and fanatics.

Yes it is best to only listen to mainstream, always.

About a hundred years ago there were these two brothers who said they could fly!
After their Kitty Hawk success, The Wrights flew their machine in open fields next to a busy rail line in Dayton Ohio for almost an entire year. American authorities refused to come to the demos, and Scientific American Magazine published stories about "The Lying Brothers." Even the local Dayton newspapers never sent a reporter (but they did complain about all the letters they were receiving from local "crazies" who reported the many flights.) Finally the Wrights packed up and moved to Europe, where they caused an overnight sensation and sold aircraft contracts to France, Germany, Britain, etc.

[HoreTore]

Yes it is best to only listen to mainstream, always.

About a hundred years ago there were these two brothers who said they could fly!
After their Kitty Hawk success, The Wrights flew their machine in open fields next to a busy rail line in Dayton Ohio for almost an entire year. American authorities refused to come to the demos, and Scientific American Magazine published stories about "The Lying Brothers." Even the local Dayton newspapers never sent a reporter (but they did complain about all the letters they were receiving from local "crazies" who reported the many flights.) Finally the Wrights packed up and moved to Europe, where they caused an overnight sensation and sold aircraft contracts to France, Germany, Britain, etc.

Anecdotal evidence, the hallmark of people with no legs to stand on.

[Fisherking]

No, I just find, form what I can see, that you are very rigged in your outlook. You reject much without examining more than ideology or a named individual.

It is like you fear some polluting influence. Your use of ridicule strikes me the same.

You don’t see the humor in bicycle mechanics proving the mainstream wrong. It is excepted now so it is a safe topic… Is there nothing that sparks your imagination?

[HoreTore]

No, I just find, form what I can see, that you are very rigged in your outlook. You reject much without examining more than ideology or a named individual.

Most of what you bring to the table is stuff I'm already very familiar with; the loonies on the libertarian fringe rarely come up with something new.

Further, there is a huge gap between statements that science has not yet explained, and statements which science has proven to be false.

[Fisherking]

Most of what you bring to the table is stuff I'm already very familiar with; the loonies on the libertarian fringe rarely come up with something new.

Further, there is a huge gap between statements that science has not yet explained, and statements which science has proven to be false.

I beg your pardon?

I post a link you won’t access because it was written by an Austrian economist but discussing the state, because you are afraid of the dangerous ideas, and I am the loony?

Shall we submit ideas to you for your approval before posting?

[HoreTore]

I post a link you won’t access because it was written by an Austrian economist but discussing the state

What?

I've read the piece, and several like it. Many times.

Further, I have no need to actually read a linky from Marx someone posts, just seeing that the author is Karl Marx is more than enough to dismiss it as loony. The same goes for libertarian loonies.

[Beskar]

Further, I have no need to actually read a linky from Marx someone posts, just seeing that the author is Karl Marx is more than enough to dismiss it as loony. The same goes for libertarian loonies.

On the plus side, there is quite a few/lot of Marx scientific literature. They just have the tendency to say "Because Marx" at the end of it, whatever the outcome.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Anecdotal evidence, the hallmark of people with no legs to stand on.

Scientific inquiry and anecdotal evidence are not incompatible. Qualitative research must be carefully framed, conducted, and recorded -- since it cannot rely on statistics without an "n of 30" with which to work. Nevertheless, good work can be done from this perspective.

[Ironside]

Yes it is best to only listen to mainstream, always.

The problem with Rothbard is that there's not much there. From the article, he talks a lot about the old states, that had a very different structure than the new ones. A blatant example is that the new nobles (multigenerational rich families) are no longer generally located within the state. They're the power players in the free market.

He doesn't discuss how to solve the problems that the state is currently solving, but rather seems to ignoring that they exist at all.

I mean complaining about the police treating assults on the police more serious than an assult on an average citizen? Well duh, any law bringing organisation would do the same, both because it's their own private interest and the interest of them to provide proper law. And letting the rest of us not needing to buy bullets because the neighbours are picking a fight, like we used to (well crossbow bolts and things like that).

For your Wright brothers anology, it's more complex than that, they had several more or less botched demonstrations for the press. Cameras were forbidden as well.
They also didn't want much attention, at least in part for fear of design theft.

[HoreTore]

Scientific inquiry and anecdotal evidence are not incompatible. Qualitative research must be carefully framed, conducted, and recorded -- since it cannot rely on statistics without an "n of 30" with which to work. Nevertheless, good work can be done from this perspective.

How is qualitative research anecdotal?

[Fisherking]

The problem with Rothbard is that there's not much there. From the article, he talks a lot about the old states, that had a very different structure than the new ones. A blatant example is that the new nobles (multigenerational rich families) are no longer generally located within the state. They're the power players in the free market.

He doesn't discuss how to solve the problems that the state is currently solving, but rather seems to ignoring that they exist at all.

I mean complaining about the police treating assults on the police more serious than an assult on an average citizen? Well duh, any law bringing organisation would do the same, both because it's their own private interest and the interest of them to provide proper law. And letting the rest of us not needing to buy bullets because the neighbours are picking a fight, like we used to (well crossbow bolts and things like that).

For your Wright brothers anology, it's more complex than that, they had several more or less botched demonstrations for the press. Cameras were forbidden as well.
They also didn't want much attention, at least in part for fear of design theft.

As I said, I found the material to be a truism. There are more ways to explain it and this is the most critical of government in general.

The critical question, as I see it is not whether the friend and colleges of the officer have more of a motive to investigate and punish the crime. It is does the law differ in its protection.

I would submit that it is different. Authority protects its self to a greater degree in penalties for the same and even lesser offences. There are even special offences for citizens dealing with the police. I think that is more to the point. Resistance to authority is a crime.

Should it be?

With the Wright Brothers, really the only point was that a scientific journal said it was a lie without an examination of the evidence.