4 ms·

The most insidious form of conversion is when you don't even realize a viewpoint is being advanced on you, instead believing it to be 'objective.' Every model

by tc 17y ago

The most insidious form of conversion is when you don't even realize a viewpoint is being advanced on you, instead believing it to be 'objective.' Every model of the world has certain assumptions, certain axioms, built into it. To maintain the ability to think for yourself, the best material to read are those works that are very clear and honest about their axioms. In a very real sense, those are the most 'scientific' works. But those same works will often appear more partisan as well, in the same way that a research paper is both more scientific and more focused on one model of the world than is a generic textbook. I recommend starting with Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty, which takes a very bottom-up approach to economic principles: http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp There are plenty of other excellent books and materials available freely from the Mises Institute as well: http://mises.org/literature.aspx http://mises.org/literature.aspx http://mises.org/media.aspx http://mises.org/media.aspx

trominos 17y ago
Your point is fairly well-argued but, I think, essentially untrue. > "Every model of the world has certain assumptions, certain axioms, built into it." This is almost a tautology. Of course it's impossible to make a truly objective model of the world, particularly if by "model of the world" we really mean "economic model that has a priori had most of the nuance stripped out of it". There's no truly objective way to approach economics, yes -- because economies are so enormous and so complex that to study them you have to ignore most of what's actually going on. But that doesn't mean all approaches to economics are equally objective, and you're wrong to suggest that objectivity of analysis isn't worth considering. I'm quite sure that some economists have less of an axe to grind than others -- and as a result have more dedication to getting at the truth -- and I'd bet that they get better answers than their competition does. They're the ones I'd like to learn from. And I'd imagine that they wouldn't adhere too closely to any given philosophy, because it seems unlikely that any one philosophy is completely right. So, having said all that, I'd like to reiterate the grandparent's request: does anybody know of any primers to economics that seem concerned more with trying to get the right answers to the questions of economics than with pushing a particular philosophy?
- tc 17y ago
  You missed my point completely. Let's see: you're wrong to suggest that objectivity of analysis isn't worth considering I abhor anything but objective analysis, which to me means something very close to "honest analysis." My suggestion above basically boils down to the idea that independent thinkers should read primary documents (while understanding their context). Go read Marx's manifesto. Read Mussolini's writings on why Marx was wrong and how fascism is a better system. Read Keynes. Read Friedman's deconstructions of Keynes. Read Mises' deconstructions of socialism (particularly the problem of economic calculation). Read Rothbard's deconstructions of monetarism. Et cetera. But skip the false textbook-style 'objectivity' that just randomly assembles the ideas of history into an incongruent mush. But that doesn't mean all approaches to economics are equally objective Correct; I would never suggest as much. Some are logically inconsistent, or consist of arguments mired deeply in logical fallacies. Some grossly conflate cause with effect and correlation with causation. Many focus only on the benefits of a policy to a concentrated group while ignoring the diffuse costs to the rest of society. And some advocate policies that never produce the outcome that is promised.
  - dan_the_welder 17y ago
    There is no such thing as objectivity. For such a thing to exist an entity with no desires, interests or stakes would have to make this objective judgment. All we can do is perhaps identify the different subjective components in a argument.
    - tc 17y ago
      It is perhaps a semantic point, but I consider a && !a objectively false and a || !a objectively true -- but even there, you have to accept certain axioms of logic. And I consider initiating violence against a peaceful person objectively immoral -- but if you don't already accept that, I'm not sure how I could convince you. Epistemology is interesting and complex.
      - Xixi 17y ago
        I respectfully disagree. a && !a is not objectively false, and neither is a && !a objectively true. You are correct within a set of accepted axioms, defined by Mr. Boole. You might be incorrect within another set of axioms. That's exactly what this thread is about : when you do real maths you always start from definitions and axioms. It's not objective or subjective, it's well defined. I do prefer to read opinions of people who state their axioms first, rather than people who pretend to be objective. Initiating violence against a peaceful person is immoral in lots of cultures (including mine). Your culture is your set of axioms here.

by tc 17y ago

trominos 17y ago

Your point is fairly well-argued but, I think, essentially untrue. > "Every model of the world has certain assumptions, certain axioms, built into it." This is almost a tautology. Of course it's impossible to make a truly objective model of the world, particularly if by "model of the world" we really mean "economic model that has a priori had most of the nuance stripped out of it". There's no truly objective way to approach economics, yes -- because economies are so enormous and so complex that to study them you have to ignore most of what's actually going on. But that doesn't mean all approaches to economics are equally objective, and you're wrong to suggest that objectivity of analysis isn't worth considering. I'm quite sure that some economists have less of an axe to grind than others -- and as a result have more dedication to getting at the truth -- and I'd bet that they get better answers than their competition does. They're the ones I'd like to learn from. And I'd imagine that they wouldn't adhere too closely to any given philosophy, because it seems unlikely that any one philosophy is completely right. So, having said all that, I'd like to reiterate the grandparent's request: does anybody know of any primers to economics that seem concerned more with trying to get the right answers to the questions of economics than with pushing a particular philosophy?

tc 17y ago
You missed my point completely. Let's see: you're wrong to suggest that objectivity of analysis isn't worth considering I abhor anything but objective analysis, which to me means something very close to "honest analysis." My suggestion above basically boils down to the idea that independent thinkers should read primary documents (while understanding their context). Go read Marx's manifesto. Read Mussolini's writings on why Marx was wrong and how fascism is a better system. Read Keynes. Read Friedman's deconstructions of Keynes. Read Mises' deconstructions of socialism (particularly the problem of economic calculation). Read Rothbard's deconstructions of monetarism. Et cetera. But skip the false textbook-style 'objectivity' that just randomly assembles the ideas of history into an incongruent mush. But that doesn't mean all approaches to economics are equally objective Correct; I would never suggest as much. Some are logically inconsistent, or consist of arguments mired deeply in logical fallacies. Some grossly conflate cause with effect and correlation with causation. Many focus only on the benefits of a policy to a concentrated group while ignoring the diffuse costs to the rest of society. And some advocate policies that never produce the outcome that is promised.
- dan_the_welder 17y ago
  There is no such thing as objectivity. For such a thing to exist an entity with no desires, interests or stakes would have to make this objective judgment. All we can do is perhaps identify the different subjective components in a argument.
  - tc 17y ago
    It is perhaps a semantic point, but I consider a && !a objectively false and a || !a objectively true -- but even there, you have to accept certain axioms of logic. And I consider initiating violence against a peaceful person objectively immoral -- but if you don't already accept that, I'm not sure how I could convince you. Epistemology is interesting and complex.
    - Xixi 17y ago
      I respectfully disagree. a && !a is not objectively false, and neither is a && !a objectively true. You are correct within a set of accepted axioms, defined by Mr. Boole. You might be incorrect within another set of axioms. That's exactly what this thread is about : when you do real maths you always start from definitions and axioms. It's not objective or subjective, it's well defined. I do prefer to read opinions of people who state their axioms first, rather than people who pretend to be objective. Initiating violence against a peaceful person is immoral in lots of cultures (including mine). Your culture is your set of axioms here.