|
|
#21 | |
|
FFR Hall of Fame
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 30
Posts: 240
|
Quote:
"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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New York
Age: 29
Posts: 504
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
As revealed preference tells us, if it didn't work then there wouldn't be people using it. Q |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 30
Posts: 240
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | ||
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#28 | |
|
FFR Veteran
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
|
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? |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|