Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Austrian economics is unscientific.

Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 12:58:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I guess they say that since human beings are not predictable, they transcend induction.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Subutai
Posts: 3,262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 2:02:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is, but that's because economics is not a science.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 3:13:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 2:02:56 PM, Subutai wrote:
It is, but that's because economics is not a science.

Really? Do explain.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 6:03:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 2:02:56 PM, Subutai wrote:
It is, but that's because economics is not a science.

LMAO!
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 6:12:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 12:46:34 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Please tell me why this isn't so.

Austrian Economics is not without method. They have contributed allot to economics, including the Austrian Business Cycle. Austrian Economists use logic, rather than equations to conduct their thought experiments. They also focus on individuals with their belief in methodological individualism.

I prefer the Chicago School. Milton Friedman is often labeled an Austrian Economist, but really he is a Chicago School economist.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 4:13:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 6:12:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:46:34 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Please tell me why this isn't so.

Austrian Economics is not without method. They have contributed allot to economics, including the Austrian Business Cycle. Austrian Economists use logic, rather than equations to conduct their thought experiments. They also focus on individuals with their belief in methodological individualism.

Sociology and psychology are scientific disciplines.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 4:59:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 4:13:12 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/5/2013 6:12:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:46:34 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Please tell me why this isn't so.

Austrian Economics is not without method. They have contributed allot to economics, including the Austrian Business Cycle. Austrian Economists use logic, rather than equations to conduct their thought experiments. They also focus on individuals with their belief in methodological individualism.

Sociology and psychology are scientific disciplines.

Stop being daft pl0x.

Or at least have the decency to address the *actual* discrepancies in Austrian economics in a somewhat coherent manner.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 5:23:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 4:59:01 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 4:13:12 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/5/2013 6:12:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:46:34 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Please tell me why this isn't so.

Austrian Economics is not without method. They have contributed allot to economics, including the Austrian Business Cycle. Austrian Economists use logic, rather than equations to conduct their thought experiments. They also focus on individuals with their belief in methodological individualism.

Sociology and psychology are scientific disciplines.

Stop being daft pl0x.

Or at least have the decency to address the *actual* discrepancies in Austrian economics in a somewhat coherent manner.

What are they, then?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 5:47:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 5:23:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 4:59:01 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 4:13:12 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/5/2013 6:12:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:46:34 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Please tell me why this isn't so.

Austrian Economics is not without method. They have contributed allot to economics, including the Austrian Business Cycle. Austrian Economists use logic, rather than equations to conduct their thought experiments. They also focus on individuals with their belief in methodological individualism.

Sociology and psychology are scientific disciplines.

Stop being daft pl0x.

Or at least have the decency to address the *actual* discrepancies in Austrian economics in a somewhat coherent manner.

What are they, then?

The discrepancies? A few come to mind.

>commitment to either subordination or integration (depending on the specific instance) of incommensurable concepts like classical logical with human action
>presuming at the outset that context and historical ruptures can be swept under the rug in the pursuit of a totalizing theory of human action- same problem with historical materialism, Hegel's spirit of realization, etc.
>unnecessarily fetishizing the concept of eternalness and 'natural order' to the detriment of heterodox methods of economic organization. That is, utilizing flimsy concepts like 'essentialism' of 'natural law' to ground real-world and contextual practices in some quasi-deterministic context.

I dunno, maybe more. Just what comes to mind when I reflect back on the Austrian's methodological and philosophical basis.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 6:08:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 5:47:50 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 5:23:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 4:59:01 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 4:13:12 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/5/2013 6:12:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:46:34 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Please tell me why this isn't so.

Austrian Economics is not without method. They have contributed allot to economics, including the Austrian Business Cycle. Austrian Economists use logic, rather than equations to conduct their thought experiments. They also focus on individuals with their belief in methodological individualism.

Sociology and psychology are scientific disciplines.

Stop being daft pl0x.

Or at least have the decency to address the *actual* discrepancies in Austrian economics in a somewhat coherent manner.

What are they, then?

The discrepancies? A few come to mind.

>commitment to either subordination or integration (depending on the specific instance) of incommensurable concepts like classical logical with human action
>presuming at the outset that context and historical ruptures can be swept under the rug in the pursuit of a totalizing theory of human action- same problem with historical materialism, Hegel's spirit of realization, etc.
>unnecessarily fetishizing the concept of eternalness and 'natural order' to the detriment of heterodox methods of economic organization. That is, utilizing flimsy concepts like 'essentialism' of 'natural law' to ground real-world and contextual practices in some quasi-deterministic context.

I dunno, maybe more. Just what comes to mind when I reflect back on the Austrian's methodological and philosophical basis.

Still unscientific.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 6:22:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 6:08:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 5:47:50 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 5:23:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 4:59:01 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 4:13:12 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/5/2013 6:12:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:46:34 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Please tell me why this isn't so.

Austrian Economics is not without method. They have contributed allot to economics, including the Austrian Business Cycle. Austrian Economists use logic, rather than equations to conduct their thought experiments. They also focus on individuals with their belief in methodological individualism.

Sociology and psychology are scientific disciplines.

Stop being daft pl0x.

Or at least have the decency to address the *actual* discrepancies in Austrian economics in a somewhat coherent manner.

What are they, then?

The discrepancies? A few come to mind.

>commitment to either subordination or integration (depending on the specific instance) of incommensurable concepts like classical logical with human action
>presuming at the outset that context and historical ruptures can be swept under the rug in the pursuit of a totalizing theory of human action- same problem with historical materialism, Hegel's spirit of realization, etc.
>unnecessarily fetishizing the concept of eternalness and 'natural order' to the detriment of heterodox methods of economic organization. That is, utilizing flimsy concepts like 'essentialism' of 'natural law' to ground real-world and contextual practices in some quasi-deterministic context.

I dunno, maybe more. Just what comes to mind when I reflect back on the Austrian's methodological and philosophical basis.

Still unscientific.

Given the fact that the 'scientizing' paradigm is as much open to criticism as the aforementioned 'totalizing theories', it's hard to see what, if any, relevance throwing out that (knee-jerk) tidbit has. Unless you happen to be the kind of person to automatically buy into that kind of thing based off of either unexplored instrumentalism or naive ambiguity as to the theoretical validity of such a concept of 'scientificity' in the first place.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 7:14:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 6:22:26 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 6:08:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 5:47:50 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 5:23:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 4:59:01 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 4:13:12 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/5/2013 6:12:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:46:34 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Please tell me why this isn't so.

Austrian Economics is not without method. They have contributed allot to economics, including the Austrian Business Cycle. Austrian Economists use logic, rather than equations to conduct their thought experiments. They also focus on individuals with their belief in methodological individualism.

Sociology and psychology are scientific disciplines.

Stop being daft pl0x.

Or at least have the decency to address the *actual* discrepancies in Austrian economics in a somewhat coherent manner.

What are they, then?

The discrepancies? A few come to mind.

>commitment to either subordination or integration (depending on the specific instance) of incommensurable concepts like classical logical with human action
>presuming at the outset that context and historical ruptures can be swept under the rug in the pursuit of a totalizing theory of human action- same problem with historical materialism, Hegel's spirit of realization, etc.
>unnecessarily fetishizing the concept of eternalness and 'natural order' to the detriment of heterodox methods of economic organization. That is, utilizing flimsy concepts like 'essentialism' of 'natural law' to ground real-world and contextual practices in some quasi-deterministic context.

I dunno, maybe more. Just what comes to mind when I reflect back on the Austrian's methodological and philosophical basis.

Still unscientific.

Given the fact that the 'scientizing' paradigm is as much open to criticism as the aforementioned 'totalizing theories', it's hard to see what, if any, relevance throwing out that (knee-jerk) tidbit has. Unless you happen to be the kind of person to automatically buy into that kind of thing based off of either unexplored instrumentalism or naive ambiguity as to the theoretical validity of such a concept of 'scientificity' in the first place.

I'm going to ask politely that you stop your intellectual masturbation and speak in English.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 7:17:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 7:14:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 6:22:26 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 6:08:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 5:47:50 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 5:23:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 4:59:01 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 4:13:12 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/5/2013 6:12:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:46:34 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Please tell me why this isn't so.

Austrian Economics is not without method. They have contributed allot to economics, including the Austrian Business Cycle. Austrian Economists use logic, rather than equations to conduct their thought experiments. They also focus on individuals with their belief in methodological individualism.

Sociology and psychology are scientific disciplines.

Stop being daft pl0x.

Or at least have the decency to address the *actual* discrepancies in Austrian economics in a somewhat coherent manner.

What are they, then?

The discrepancies? A few come to mind.

>commitment to either subordination or integration (depending on the specific instance) of incommensurable concepts like classical logical with human action
>presuming at the outset that context and historical ruptures can be swept under the rug in the pursuit of a totalizing theory of human action- same problem with historical materialism, Hegel's spirit of realization, etc.
>unnecessarily fetishizing the concept of eternalness and 'natural order' to the detriment of heterodox methods of economic organization. That is, utilizing flimsy concepts like 'essentialism' of 'natural law' to ground real-world and contextual practices in some quasi-deterministic context.

I dunno, maybe more. Just what comes to mind when I reflect back on the Austrian's methodological and philosophical basis.

Still unscientific.

Given the fact that the 'scientizing' paradigm is as much open to criticism as the aforementioned 'totalizing theories', it's hard to see what, if any, relevance throwing out that (knee-jerk) tidbit has. Unless you happen to be the kind of person to automatically buy into that kind of thing based off of either unexplored instrumentalism or naive ambiguity as to the theoretical validity of such a concept of 'scientificity' in the first place.

I'm going to ask politely that you stop your intellectual masturbation and speak in English.

It's not that I'm not speaking English, it's that yer trying to discuss things you have little to no grasp over.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 7:23:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 7:17:48 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:14:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 6:22:26 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 6:08:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 5:47:50 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 5:23:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 4:59:01 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 4:13:12 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/5/2013 6:12:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:46:34 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Please tell me why this isn't so.

Austrian Economics is not without method. They have contributed allot to economics, including the Austrian Business Cycle. Austrian Economists use logic, rather than equations to conduct their thought experiments. They also focus on individuals with their belief in methodological individualism.

Sociology and psychology are scientific disciplines.

Stop being daft pl0x.

Or at least have the decency to address the *actual* discrepancies in Austrian economics in a somewhat coherent manner.

What are they, then?

The discrepancies? A few come to mind.

>commitment to either subordination or integration (depending on the specific instance) of incommensurable concepts like classical logical with human action
>presuming at the outset that context and historical ruptures can be swept under the rug in the pursuit of a totalizing theory of human action- same problem with historical materialism, Hegel's spirit of realization, etc.
>unnecessarily fetishizing the concept of eternalness and 'natural order' to the detriment of heterodox methods of economic organization. That is, utilizing flimsy concepts like 'essentialism' of 'natural law' to ground real-world and contextual practices in some quasi-deterministic context.

I dunno, maybe more. Just what comes to mind when I reflect back on the Austrian's methodological and philosophical basis.

Still unscientific.

Given the fact that the 'scientizing' paradigm is as much open to criticism as the aforementioned 'totalizing theories', it's hard to see what, if any, relevance throwing out that (knee-jerk) tidbit has. Unless you happen to be the kind of person to automatically buy into that kind of thing based off of either unexplored instrumentalism or naive ambiguity as to the theoretical validity of such a concept of 'scientificity' in the first place.

I'm going to ask politely that you stop your intellectual masturbation and speak in English.

It's not that I'm not speaking English, it's that yer trying to discuss things you have little to no grasp over.

Then how do you explain Philosophy Bro?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 7:25:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 7:23:36 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:17:48 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:14:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 6:22:26 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 6:08:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 5:47:50 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 5:23:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 4:59:01 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 4:13:12 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/5/2013 6:12:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:46:34 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Please tell me why this isn't so.

Austrian Economics is not without method. They have contributed allot to economics, including the Austrian Business Cycle. Austrian Economists use logic, rather than equations to conduct their thought experiments. They also focus on individuals with their belief in methodological individualism.

Sociology and psychology are scientific disciplines.

Stop being daft pl0x.

Or at least have the decency to address the *actual* discrepancies in Austrian economics in a somewhat coherent manner.

What are they, then?

The discrepancies? A few come to mind.

>commitment to either subordination or integration (depending on the specific instance) of incommensurable concepts like classical logical with human action
>presuming at the outset that context and historical ruptures can be swept under the rug in the pursuit of a totalizing theory of human action- same problem with historical materialism, Hegel's spirit of realization, etc.
>unnecessarily fetishizing the concept of eternalness and 'natural order' to the detriment of heterodox methods of economic organization. That is, utilizing flimsy concepts like 'essentialism' of 'natural law' to ground real-world and contextual practices in some quasi-deterministic context.

I dunno, maybe more. Just what comes to mind when I reflect back on the Austrian's methodological and philosophical basis.

Still unscientific.

Given the fact that the 'scientizing' paradigm is as much open to criticism as the aforementioned 'totalizing theories', it's hard to see what, if any, relevance throwing out that (knee-jerk) tidbit has. Unless you happen to be the kind of person to automatically buy into that kind of thing based off of either unexplored instrumentalism or naive ambiguity as to the theoretical validity of such a concept of 'scientificity' in the first place.

I'm going to ask politely that you stop your intellectual masturbation and speak in English.

It's not that I'm not speaking English, it's that yer trying to discuss things you have little to no grasp over.

Then how do you explain Philosophy Bro?

What about it?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 7:32:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 7:25:02 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:23:36 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:17:48 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:14:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 6:22:26 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 6:08:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 5:47:50 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 5:23:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 4:59:01 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 4:13:12 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/5/2013 6:12:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:46:34 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Please tell me why this isn't so.

Austrian Economics is not without method. They have contributed allot to economics, including the Austrian Business Cycle. Austrian Economists use logic, rather than equations to conduct their thought experiments. They also focus on individuals with their belief in methodological individualism.

Sociology and psychology are scientific disciplines.

Stop being daft pl0x.

Or at least have the decency to address the *actual* discrepancies in Austrian economics in a somewhat coherent manner.

What are they, then?

The discrepancies? A few come to mind.

>commitment to either subordination or integration (depending on the specific instance) of incommensurable concepts like classical logical with human action
>presuming at the outset that context and historical ruptures can be swept under the rug in the pursuit of a totalizing theory of human action- same problem with historical materialism, Hegel's spirit of realization, etc.
>unnecessarily fetishizing the concept of eternalness and 'natural order' to the detriment of heterodox methods of economic organization. That is, utilizing flimsy concepts like 'essentialism' of 'natural law' to ground real-world and contextual practices in some quasi-deterministic context.

I dunno, maybe more. Just what comes to mind when I reflect back on the Austrian's methodological and philosophical basis.

Still unscientific.

Given the fact that the 'scientizing' paradigm is as much open to criticism as the aforementioned 'totalizing theories', it's hard to see what, if any, relevance throwing out that (knee-jerk) tidbit has. Unless you happen to be the kind of person to automatically buy into that kind of thing based off of either unexplored instrumentalism or naive ambiguity as to the theoretical validity of such a concept of 'scientificity' in the first place.

I'm going to ask politely that you stop your intellectual masturbation and speak in English.

It's not that I'm not speaking English, it's that yer trying to discuss things you have little to no grasp over.

Then how do you explain Philosophy Bro?

What about it?

They can speak and be understood. I suppose real philosophers like you simply can't be expected to understand the irrational nuances of our primitive hoo-man dialect.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 7:49:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 7:32:05 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:25:02 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:23:36 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

Then how do you explain Philosophy Bro?

What about it?

They can speak and be understood.

As can most people. Understanding is a two-way concept though. Whereas I agree in principle that concepts and relationships should to some extent be 'edited' for consumption, it's not my primary goal if doing so necessitates a reduction (or ironic obfuscation) of content quality. That is, if dumbing it down makes the original 'idea' fueling the post unrecognizable, I'm not doing it. You can either (in actual good faith) ask for clarification (a request which, if not posed in an asinine way, I'd accept) or *not* whine to me about big words because you feel threatened when the superficial nature of yer studies is brought to light (preferably both actually).

I suppose real philosophers like you simply can't be expected to understand the irrational nuances of our primitive hoo-man dialect.

I suppose it's my fault for not dumbing it down to GED level for ya.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 8:28:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 7:49:06 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:32:05 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:25:02 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:23:36 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

Then how do you explain Philosophy Bro?

What about it?

They can speak and be understood.

As can most people. Understanding is a two-way concept though. Whereas I agree in principle that concepts and relationships should to some extent be 'edited' for consumption, it's not my primary goal if doing so necessitates a reduction (or ironic obfuscation) of content quality. That is, if dumbing it down makes the original 'idea' fueling the post unrecognizable, I'm not doing it. You can either (in actual good faith) ask for clarification (a request which, if not posed in an asinine way, I'd accept) or *not* whine to me about big words because you feel threatened when the superficial nature of yer studies is brought to light (preferably both actually).

I neither imagine nor pretend to be an expert on obscure purist schools of economics. I did become a libertarian for a while (WSA was a bad influence), but I've almost recovered now.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 8:44:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 7:49:06 AM, Noumena wrote:
I suppose it's my fault for not dumbing it down to GED level for ya.

Oh no he didn't!
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 8:45:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 8:28:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:49:06 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:32:05 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:25:02 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:23:36 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

Then how do you explain Philosophy Bro?

What about it?

They can speak and be understood.

As can most people. Understanding is a two-way concept though. Whereas I agree in principle that concepts and relationships should to some extent be 'edited' for consumption, it's not my primary goal if doing so necessitates a reduction (or ironic obfuscation) of content quality. That is, if dumbing it down makes the original 'idea' fueling the post unrecognizable, I'm not doing it. You can either (in actual good faith) ask for clarification (a request which, if not posed in an asinine way, I'd accept) or *not* whine to me about big words because you feel threatened when the superficial nature of yer studies is brought to light (preferably both actually).

I neither imagine nor pretend to be an expert on obscure purist schools of economics. I did become a libertarian for a while (WSA was a bad influence), but I've almost recovered now.

That's not at all the vibe I took from yer postings here (juxtaposed of course with yer usual tone) but to each his own I suppose.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 8:47:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 8:44:23 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:49:06 AM, Noumena wrote:
I suppose it's my fault for not dumbing it down to GED level for ya.

Oh no he didn't!

The artist formerly known as Mouthwash deserved it the moment he defensively whined "intellectual masturbation" in the face of something he simply didn't understand.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 8:55:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 7:49:06 AM, Noumena wrote:

I suppose it's my fault for not dumbing it down to GED level for ya.

Noumena's a ratchet b!tch
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 8:58:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 8:55:21 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:49:06 AM, Noumena wrote:

I suppose it's my fault for not dumbing it down to GED level for ya.

Noumena's a ratchet b!tch

At least I didn't fan boy over the possibility of Johnny Depp as the Twelfth.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 9:00:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 8:47:44 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:44:23 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:49:06 AM, Noumena wrote:
I suppose it's my fault for not dumbing it down to GED level for ya.

Oh no he didn't!

The artist formerly known as Mouthwash deserved it the moment he defensively whined "intellectual masturbation" in the face of something he simply didn't understand.

I'm sure he did. I was just skimming through and noticed a level of sass that I...that I just had to be part of.
Subutai
Posts: 3,262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 9:17:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 3:13:49 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:02:56 PM, Subutai wrote:
It is, but that's because economics is not a science.

Really? Do explain.

The economist should not mimic the behavior of the natural scientists, because the social sciences involve human beings. Human action is characterized by intentional behavior, which involves the rational use of means to achieve desired ends. The very subject matter of economics"capital goods, money, wage rates, etc."is not defined by physical or chemical properties, but instead by the mental or subjective attitudes that human minds take toward these things. Consequently, the proper method for an economist is to start with self-evident axioms"such as that people try to achieve the highest satisfaction at the lowest cost"and logically deduce conclusions from them.

It has more to do with mathematics and statistics - in other words, Austrians believe in deductive logic and establishing axioms rather than a strict mathematical viewpoint.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 9:49:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 9:00:28 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:47:44 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:44:23 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:49:06 AM, Noumena wrote:
I suppose it's my fault for not dumbing it down to GED level for ya.

Oh no he didn't!

The artist formerly known as Mouthwash deserved it the moment he defensively whined "intellectual masturbation" in the face of something he simply didn't understand.

I'm sure he did. I was just skimming through and noticed a level of sass that I...that I just had to be part of.

Funnily enough I had the exact opposite reaction to the sass. Drowning poodles in a rubber swimming pool came to mind.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2013 5:32:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 9:17:01 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/5/2013 3:13:49 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:02:56 PM, Subutai wrote:
It is, but that's because economics is not a science.

Really? Do explain.

The economist should not mimic the behavior of the natural scientists, because the social sciences involve human beings. Human action is characterized by intentional behavior, which involves the rational use of means to achieve desired ends.

This is my problem. Subjugating the whole of sociology and psychology into your "axioms" is obviously going to give you your desired conclusions, but it isn't scientific, now is it?

The very subject matter of economics"capital goods, money, wage rates, etc."is not defined by physical or chemical properties, but instead by the mental or subjective attitudes that human minds take toward these things. Consequently, the proper method for an economist is to start with self-evident axioms"such as that people try to achieve the highest satisfaction at the lowest cost"and logically deduce conclusions from them.

That is not even remotely self-evident, and certainly not when talking about large groups of people.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2013 5:51:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
By unscientific do you mean incorrect? As in, not correct when scientific standards are applied?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2013 5:59:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/7/2013 5:51:09 AM, sdavio wrote:
By unscientific do you mean incorrect? As in, not correct when scientific standards are applied?

Not necessarily.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."