What is human nature--is there such a thing?

[coberst]

Re: What is human nature--is there such a thing?

Q

There is only one absolute and this is it "there are no absolutes".

Math is useful when studying things that are pattern like. The object of study of the human sciences are humans and humans are not very pattern like.

Mathematical economics is not useful for studying human motivation and human nature.

[aperson]

Re: What is human nature--is there such a thing?

And this is the reason I rarely reply to your posts. Not once have you stated an absolute. Surely, you've defined your parameters for discussion, but always you make philosophical conclusions part of your assumptions.

Not once have you attempted to use empirical data to support a point, only quotations and citations from sections of "science" that are barely considered to be scientific.

What you're missing, dear sir, is economics. Rational, reasonable, mathmatical economics.

Q

Sorry, Q, but his response that "the only absolute is that there are no absolutes" is spot on for his discussion. You are suffering from tunnel vision, and believe it or not, empirical evidence is not sufficient to analyze this discussion.

Math is useful when studying things that are pattern like. The object of study of the human sciences are humans and humans are not very pattern like.

This, however, is absolutely absurd. If I'm not mistaken we wake up in much the same place day to day, have similar day to day routines, and are incredibly patterned individuals on pretty much any level from which you can examine us: The biological level is patterned from well-controlled, repeatable cell development and consistent methods of neural firing and wiring, the mental level is patterned in that we create concepts, abstractions, and analogies to which we constantly refer and use as heuristics in our mind, and the social level is patterned on a clearly observable level (just look at language, that's about as clear of an example as you can get; language is just patterns).

Coberst, you are also suffering from tunnel vision. The pure sciences such as mathematics, metamathematics, logic, and physics do say a lot of the same things about knowledge and observation; if they don't directly speak to it, then they do address it on the first meta-level analysis of the subject. They say the same things that the "human sciences" do, in fact they all point back to larger issues of epistemology.

I suspect you need to open your resources up or you are going to lock yourself into the same pits as Q has.

[perkeyone]

Re: What is human nature--is there such a thing?

empirical evidence is not sufficient to analyze this discussion.

! is there any other kind of evidence worth using?

[aperson]

Re: What is human nature--is there such a thing?

! is there any other kind of evidence worth using?

So now we are saying that only valid knowledge is based on evidence? Sorry, we're addressing something that draws back behind human perception, so observational analysis is not sufficient to address it.

[perkeyone]

Re: What is human nature--is there such a thing?

So now we are saying that only valid knowledge is based on evidence? Sorry, we're addressing something that draws back behind human perception, so observational analysis is not sufficient to address it.

umm. isnt observation based on perception? i think your talking in circles. besides the definition of empirical knowledge makes it pretty clear that it is the only valid type.

[aperson]

Re: What is human nature--is there such a thing?

besides the definition of empirical knowledge makes it pretty clear that it is the only valid type.

I think you don't understand what I'm saying.

Besides, I could say that there exists some reasoning schema, let's call it S1, that defines itself as such: If aperson says some statement s is true, then s is true; this reasoning schema is the only valid reasoning schema.

S1 satisfies the same conditions of validity as 'empirical knowledge' and we certainly know that S1 isn't valid.

Also, I'm not talking in circles; I'm saying that observation is still limited by our perception. There is no way to justify anything we evaluate inside our perception because we can't justify our perception in some stronger system. Math, science, and empirical fields are all based on completely arbitrary axioms that are meant to mimic the real world, but we can't say that they themselves are objectively descriptive.

[perkeyone]

Re: What is human nature--is there such a thing?

I think you don't understand what I'm saying.

Besides, I could say that there exists some reasoning schema, let's call it S1, that defines itself as such: If aperson says some statement s is true, then s is true; this reasoning schema is the only valid reasoning schema.

S1 satisfies the same conditions of validity as 'empirical knowledge' and we certainly know that S1 isn't valid.

Also, I'm not talking in circles; I'm saying that observation is still limited by our perception. There is no way to justify anything we evaluate inside our perception because we can't justify our perception in some stronger system. Math, science, and empirical fields are all based on completely arbitrary axioms that are meant to mimic the real world, but we can't say that they themselves are objectively descriptive.

hmm your right i dont fully understand you
"if this statement is true then this statement is true"
the first thing about the schema does this fall into the same catagory?
"this is a lie"
about the second thing i understand that perception may be a bit cloudy for some (ex. crazy people) what they perceive is not necissarily true. But what defines an unclouded persective free of... well craziness i suppose?

[RandomPscho]

Re: What is human nature--is there such a thing?

about the second thing i understand that perception may be a bit cloudy for some (ex. crazy people) what they perceive is not necissarily true. But what defines an unclouded persective free of... well craziness i suppose?

Aperson is not talking about crazy people, that is unless you think all people are crazy.

Our perceptions are how we view the world. If our perceptions of reality are wrong, then everything we base upon them are also incorrect. We assume what we perceive to be correct, though that might not necessarily be the case.
Hope that makes sense.

[The_Q]

Re: What is human nature--is there such a thing?

Math is useful when studying things that are pattern like. The object of study of the human sciences are humans and humans are not very pattern like.

Mathematical economics is not useful for studying human motivation and human nature.

It's funny, then, that the most basic principles of economics deal with so called "human nature." It's also odd that, with everything in economics being so closely entertwined with our "nature," it tends to be quite accurate in its predictions and analyses.

As revealed preference tells us, if it didn't work then there wouldn't be people using it.

Q

[perkeyone]

Re: What is human nature--is there such a thing?

Aperson is not talking about crazy people, that is unless you think all people are crazy.

Our perceptions are how we view the world. If our perceptions of reality are wrong, then everything we base upon them are also incorrect. We assume what we perceive to be correct, though that might not necessarily be the case.
Hope that makes sense.

yeah that makes sense i just used crazy people as an example also i thought i knew what ap was saying but it got jubled up in my head so i was trying to clarify i guess

[coberst]

Re: What is human nature--is there such a thing?

It's funny, then, that the most basic principles of economics deal with so called "human nature." It's also odd that, with everything in economics being so closely entertwined with our "nature," it tends to be quite accurate in its predictions and analyses.

As revealed preference tells us, if it didn't work then there wouldn't be people using it.

Q

Economics is the science of making money. Economics makes objects of subjects so that these objects fit into the mathematics of making money. Modern economics is not about humnas as subjects but as about objects. But I am not very interested in speaking about economics, even that part that might take note of humans as subjects.

[The_Q]

Re: What is human nature--is there such a thing?

Economics is the science of making money.

Economics, actually, is the study of decision making. In fact, it has most to do with people put in situations where very subtle choices are being made. It has been defined in more or less terms almost since modern economics as a science was first implemented in 1776. In fact, economics' involvement with money is coincidental: money is a very conveniently pre-existing measurement system.

Economics makes objects of subjects so that these objects fit into the mathematics of making money.

Yes, economics quantifies many things. However, the statistical values of objects are only significantly used in large generalized projects such as those in macroeconomics (which I honestly can't talk much about. I study microecon). Quantification isn't a bad thing, though. It provides the ability to discern magnitudes and more exact answers rather than rough approximations of a person's behavior.

Deirdre McCloskey has several works on economics as a science that you would most certainly enjoy. They explain the parts that you have a blantant misunderstanding of and might even agree with the parts you might have a partial understanding of. Wonderfully written material, you should really look into it. In fact, your essays could really gain a lot from looking at her style and borrowing some elements.

Q

[iggymatrixcounter]

Re: What is human nature--is there such a thing?

Yes, economics quantifies many things. However, the statistical values of objects are only significantly used in large generalized projects such as those in macroeconomics (which I honestly can't talk much about. I study microecon). Quantification isn't a bad thing, though. It provides the ability to discern magnitudes and more exact answers rather than rough approximations of a person's behavior.

Q

I have studied Macroeconomics to some extent. You want to be careful about you faith in economics as an iron clad science. When you cross into macro, there's less science and more art to it.

Exact answers are impossible because much of Macro is defining things that are too complex to define (Such as the potential output of an economy).

But generalities can be used to make it into a science. If interest rates rise, then the Federal Reserve can lower the Reserve ratio to allow banks to loan more money which, in theory, will lower interest rates.

My point is that you can make logical conclusions from abstract ideas. I haven't read all of the thread and where it's going so I'm not going to say what's being said is right or wrong but their approach isn't completely invalid just because they can't use the scientific method or some other acid test procedure to prove their conclusion.

[coberst]

Re: What is human nature--is there such a thing?

Q

I checked my library and they have several of her books but they are all about British economic history, excepy one was "The Crossing". Would that be worth my reading?