Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Again, I'll ask what you're trying to say. Aside from tautologies, falsification can still be applied.

All mathematics is tautology. It can only be falsified by internal contradiction.


That doesnt mean its independent from experience though. 1+1=2 has obvious empirical motivation. But it cant be falsified by observation.

Austrian economics is like that. Supply and demand are not things anyone would come up with without ever having studied an actual economy (unlike what rationalists might claim, but yeah they are wrong). If it consistently turned out to be wrong, i doubt anyone would be using it. But it isnt consistently wrong: it is consistently correct.

To claim the notions of supply and demand are falsifiable by some data fitting and extrapolation to a boiling sea of noise, is silly. If you put two apples with two apples and you find you have five: start by counting again, instead of rejecting 2+2=4.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
1+1=2 has obvious empirical motivation. But it cant be falsified by observation.

Austrian economics is like that.

Correction. Austrian "economists" pretend they were like that while still useful for the real-world.

Feel free to post an example of a useful [predictive and real-world applicable] Austrian "theorem" that is wholly derived solely from postulates such as, "humans act"

Go.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco
1+1=2 has obvious empirical motivation. But it cant be falsified by observation.

Austrian economics is like that.

Correction. Austrian "economists" pretend they were like that while still useful for the real-world.

Feel free to post an example of a useful [predictive and real-world applicable] Austrian "theorem" that is wholly derived solely from postulates such as, "humans act"

Go.

Perhaps if you started reading other peoples comments, instead of consistently pulling strawmen out of your ass, people might keep bothering argueing with you.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco
1+1=2 has obvious empirical motivation. But it cant be falsified by observation.

Austrian economics is like that.

Correction. Austrian "economists" pretend they were like that while still useful for the real-world.

Feel free to post an example of a useful [predictive and real-world applicable] Austrian "theorem" that is wholly derived solely from postulates such as, "humans act"

Go.

Perhaps if you started reading other peoples comments, instead of consistently pulling strawmen out of your ass, people might keep bothering argueing with you.

Apologies if my call for you to provide any sort of backing for the Austrians has managed to incense you. Either way, references to "strawmen" are a rather ironic response to my post.

By invoking the accusation of "strawman," are you saying that I have exaggerated the Austrians' claims; I merely stated that they purport to deduce useful theories. Please do correct me, if I've overstated their claims ... perhaps they only purport to have useless theories...??



Should you come up with anything more than baseless accusations, you'd do far more to bolster your claim regarding the Austrians by actually showing us all how they follow through with their claims of deduction -- by posting a significant example of such. Not surprising if you (or anyone else) cannot actually manage to do that though, so this is the point in the thread at which I expect those insinuating the deductive nature of the Austrians to let the issue die, or to toss out some red herring to distract from the inability to provide said example....

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on July 27, 2009 12:43:28 PM]

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco
1+1=2 has obvious empirical motivation. But it cant be falsified by observation.

Austrian economics is like that.

Correction. Austrian "economists" pretend they were like that while still useful for the real-world.

Feel free to post an example of a useful [predictive and real-world applicable] Austrian "theorem" that is wholly derived solely from postulates such as, "humans act"

Go.

Perhaps if you started reading other peoples comments, instead of consistently pulling strawmen out of your ass, people might keep bothering argueing with you.

Apologies if my call for you to provide any sort of backing for the Austrians has managed to incense you. Either way, references to "strawmen" are a rather ironic response to my post.

By invoking the accusation of "strawman," are you saying that I have exaggerated the Austrians' claims; I merely stated that they purport to deduce useful theories. Please do correct me, if I've overstated their claims ... perhaps they only purport to have useless theories...??



Should you come up with anything more than baseless accusations, you'd do far more to bolster the case for the Austrians by actually showing us all how they follow through with their claims of deduction, by posting a significant example of such. Not surprising if you (or anyone else) cannot actually manage to do that though....

I explicitly distantiate myself from pure rationalism. You respond by asking me to defend pure rationalism.

In other words: either you are clueless, you dont read at all, or both. Either way: have fun arguing with yourself.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

I explicitly distantiate myself from pure rationalism. You respond by asking me to defend pure rationalism.

"Distance yourself" or not, you were asked to defend the specific claim that YOU made.... namely, that "Austrian economics is like that."


It's fine if parts of your post were largely inadvertent, and you need to walk away from such assertions now.

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on July 27, 2009 12:58:54 PM]

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco

I explicitly distantiate myself from pure rationalism. You respond by asking me to defend pure rationalism.

"Distance yourself" or not, you were asked to defend the specific claim that YOU made.... namely, that "Austrian economics is like that."


It's fine if that was largely inadvertent, and you need to walk away from such assertions now.

Is like what?

Go read some Quine, perhaps some Ayer, and get a clue.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
"Distance yourself" or not, you were asked to defend the specific claim that YOU made.... namely, that "Austrian economics is like that."


It's fine if that was largely inadvertent, and you need to walk away from such assertions now.

Is like what?

Are you not aware of the very words that YOU type up?

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Eelco
1+1=2 has obvious empirical motivation. But it cant be falsified by observation.

Austrian economics is like that.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Go read some Quine, perhaps some Ayer, and get a clue.

Certainly may be more fruitful than trying to any clue of what someone means when they type up specific assertions and then suddenly become oblivious to them when asked to elaborate.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
"Distance yourself" or not, you were asked to defend the specific claim that YOU made.... namely, that "Austrian economics is like that."


It's fine if that was largely inadvertent, and you need to walk away from such assertions now.

Is like what?

Are you not aware of the very words that YOU type up?

I am, once you catch up, maybe we can continue this discussion.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Are you not aware of the very words that YOU type up?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
1+1=2 has obvious empirical motivation. But it cant be falsified by observation.

Austrian economics is like that.

I am, once you catch up, maybe we can continue this discussion.

I'll pass on the mind-numbing task of "catching up" with that post, as it apparently conveyed the intended meaning so poorly that entire swaths of it needed to be repudiated. Thanks anyways.







I'm still curious about possible responses to the questions I asked about Austrians. Perhaps that Maelstrom guy will take a turn at responding...

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on July 27, 2009 1:57:58 PM]