Not trying to lionize Schiff? Yeah right! He's the guy you always trot out to defend Rothbard and Mises, as if Schiff's foresight came from two dead guys. He's got Shinigami eyes!

Schiff gets the press because the business press is lazy. The business press also likes guys it can count on to denounce regulations.

Roubini saw it coming. Talbott saw it coming. Stiglitz saw it coming. Hell, I bet a lot of guys saw it coming and rather than send up warning flags they went about stealing as much as they could before the charade collapsed. And if you're going to forgo empirical requirements, then you must accept that Naomi Klein saw it coming and warned about it in 2007 with The Shock Doctrine.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
I'm not entirely sure you understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative.

In other words, you want to bring up Schiff, but would prefer if we only examine him very superficially. I'm not entirely sure how far you'll stoop to try to sweep his failures under the rug. No matter how you want to parse it, the fact that reality has moved counter to his significant claims does expose the shallowness of Schiff's qualitative understanding.

Interesting attempt at deflecting from Schiff's horrible performance, though.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
You mean they had the massive "skill" it takes to say that "oh hey ... one of these days, there's gonna be a recession!" How ever did a broken clock manage to turn out right...?

Again, I have to ask, "Simple ignorance or willfull mischaracterization?" I don't know you well enough to know whether you're just that ignorant of the facts or whether you're the type that will say anything to "win" an internet debate.

When mainstream econ was saying "Buy Merrill Lynch" and "Buy Financials" several Austrians are on record saying the economy was going to tank and it was going to tank because of the financial industry.

Accusations of ignorance from someone engaging in blatant cherry-picking. That's just too cute....




In any case, there are several actual scientists (mainstream economists) on record about an expected mortgage downturn, as well.


[Edited by - HostileExpanse on July 25, 2009 8:30:38 PM]

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
"[economic] premises do not have to be (indeed, cannot be) verified by appeal to statistical fact."

also see Rothbard a paragraph later.

Quote: This is precisely the nub of the issue. All the positivist procedures are
based on the physical sciences. It is physics that knows or can know its
“facts” and can test its conclusions against these facts, while being
completely ignorant of its ultimate assumptions. In the sciences of human
action, on the other hand, it is impossible to test conclusions. There is no
laboratory where facts can be isolated and controlled; the “facts” of human
history are complex ones, resultants of many causes. These causes can only
be isolated by theory, theory that is necessarily a priori to these historical
(including statistical) facts. Of course, Professor Hutchison would not go
this far in rejecting empirical testing of theorems; but, being commendably
skeptical of the possibilities of testing (though not of its desirability), he
insists that the assumptions be verified as well.

Quote:
Saying that you don't have to bother testing for facts against your theories --- it doesn't get much further from science than that. You seem unaware of this, so perhaps YOU need to gain some accurate knowledge of the Austrian pseudo-scientists so that you can come back and speak from a foundation of understanding.

Having just quoted Rothbard on the subject you assume to be addressing, and finding that your text is a mischaracterization of both his statement and the meaning of it

Nothing you posted above managed to show that my assessment was a "mischaracterization." Without even getting into all of the errors in the analogy you quoted from Rothbard, you still posted ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that made his approach any more legitimate from a scientific standpoint.

The Austrians' method is not scientific, and they're proud of it. But, keep tossing around the "mischaracterization" label. I guess if you act as if the elephant isn't in the room, then you can safely ignore it. With a defense like that, perhaps there's a bit of cognitive dissonance going on...


But seriously, anyone evaluating the Austrians on a petty neutral level likely has no problem seeing the extraordinarily non-scientific underpinnings within, "[the system I use is composed only of] statements and propositions ... not derived from experience.
They are not subject to ... falsification on the grounds of ... facts."


So ... as I've said before, even if the Austrians *do* manage to come up with something that (superficially) looks correct, their methods are unreliable, for the same reasons we can't rely on the "validity" of tarot card readers. You can trust them if you like, but most of the world has moved on from encouraging this sort of armchair-only theorizing.

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on July 25, 2009 6:31:38 PM]

Seems me,economists know reasons but just afraid get cough,like in old Odessa joke story about jow-druggist and his leaner:
-I'm going to lunch,Isaak coming soon,give him a medicine against cough and sneeze,seems me he has a flu...
When he return farmacy, leaner says :
-forgive me,teacher,I've made mistake and got him a purge!
-oh,Lord! And where is he?
-probably, he stand around the corner and afraid to sneeze...

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
So ... as I've said before, even if the Austrians *do* manage to come up with something that (superficially) looks correct, their methods are unreliable, for the same reasons we can't rely on the "validity" of tarot card readers. You can trust them if you like, but most of the world has moved on from encouraging this sort of armchair-only theorizing.

So in your opinion economics is a "hard science" in the same way that physics is a "hard science"? I want to be clear about your assertion.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
So ... as I've said before, even if the Austrians *do* manage to come up with something that (superficially) looks correct, their methods are unreliable, for the same reasons we can't rely on the "validity" of tarot card readers. You can trust them if you like, but most of the world has moved on from encouraging this sort of armchair-only theorizing.

So in your opinion economics is a "hard science" in the same way that physics is a "hard science"? I want to be clear about your assertion.

My assertion had little to do with the "hardness" of the respective sciences.
I thought my assertion to be pretty clear already; I assert that the key thinkers of the Austrian bunch -- by their own words -- established that their group should proudly reject fundamental scientific tenets.


Compare:
- Einstein [actual scientist]: "A single experiment can prove me wrong"
- von Mises [Austrian econ pseudo-scientist]: "the propositions and statements [of my economic system]...are not subject to...falsification on the grounds of...facts"

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
So ... as I've said before, even if the Austrians *do* manage to come up with something that (superficially) looks correct, their methods are unreliable, for the same reasons we can't rely on the "validity" of tarot card readers. You can trust them if you like, but most of the world has moved on from encouraging this sort of armchair-only theorizing.

So in your opinion economics is a "hard science" in the same way that physics is a "hard science"? I want to be clear about your assertion.

My assertion had little to do with the "hardness" of the respective sciences.
I thought my assertion to be pretty clear already; I assert that the key thinkers of the Austrian bunch -- by their own words -- established that their group should proudly reject fundamental scientific tenets.


Compare:
- Einstein [actual scientist]: "A single experiment can prove me wrong"
- von Mises [Austrian econ pseudo-scientist]: "the propositions and statements [of my economic system]...are not subject to...falsification on the grounds of...facts"

Good Lord man, so you are arguing that like physics, economics lends itself well to the tenets of hard(physical) sciences?

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Good Lord man, so you are arguing that like physics, economics lends itself well to the tenets of hard(physical) sciences?

I don't believe that I've argued, or even addressed that topic.

My assertion has consistently regarded the Austrian methods, and if my assertion is still not clear, I'm not really sure how to further clarify the idea that "the Austrians reject science."

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Good Lord man, so you are arguing that like physics, economics lends itself well to the tenets of hard(physical) sciences?

I don't believe that I've argued, or even addressed that topic.

My assertion has consistently regarded the Austrian methods, and if my assertion is still not clear, I'm not really sure how to further clarify the idea that "the Austrians reject science."

You're arguing that economics lends itself to the same tenets that physics does. I'm trying to make a point about the difference between physical sciences and social sciences, but you're dogmatically reverting back to your statement instead of clarifying your premise.

Do you think the same tenets hold for physical sciences and social sciences, and if not, do you then contend that economics is a physical science?

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
You're arguing that economics lends itself to the same tenets that physics does.

Saying there should be proper testing is quite a different thing than saying that one branch of science should have tests/whatever in the same manner as another.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Do you think the same tenets hold for physical sciences and social sciences, and if not, do you then contend that economics is a physical science?

Not sure if this helps answer your question, but I'll say the following.

Do I think the fundamental tenets of science should be applied to any field of theorizing?
Likely, it isn't hard to guess that my answer is "yes."




You seem to find that somehow surprising. That's interesting when people likely would have quite the opposite take ... specifically, the way that you excuse the Austrian bunch and their rejection of science is far more surprising than my desire for scientific principles to be applied.

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on July 25, 2009 10:59:53 PM]