= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Why is Mencius Moldbug so popular on Less Wrong? [Answer: He's not.] - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (259)
If I replace "economic variables" with "astronomy" what part of this sentence changes in implication? Why is this incoherent for some fields? The level of rigor cannot be the only difference: Physics and astronomy have become more rigorous over time, not by discussing first principles, even when moving from Aristotle to Medieval physics to Newtonian physics, but rather by adopting principles based on the empirical data. The same goes for the switch from Ptolemaic systems to Copernicus and then Kepler. It is the empirical data that matters, the apparent time-series of planetary and stellar motion.
Does arguing over this definition pay any rent?
One can do controlled experiments in physics here on Earth and apply the results to astronomy.
So that's true, but until the late 1700s (essentially post Newton) no one had any capacity to do so (because no ideas anyone had connected the two at all in a useful way). Would this sort of claim then been valid in 1650?
Re the Q about rent-paying: Yes. You should rightly be skeptical now, but please read the Economics sub-section at Moldbuggery with an open mind. Or if you prefer, start with Rothbard's 'Man Economy and State'.
The reason I linked to Moldbug's articles in this thread (indeed, this thread being only reason I signed up instead of lurking) is cos I have seen it said in LW that Misesian economics is incoherent, anti-empirical etc. With respect, people who say that are making a mistake. But what is germane is not the mistake, but the financial effect it can have.
Economics - of all subjects - pays rent. Maybe not in the short term, but eventually and especially when the central banks of the major economies are doing effectively insane things.
This doesn't answer the question. Note that no one is arguing that economics doesn't pay rent. The question was whether arguing over '"what is an economy" pays rent or not.
I misunderstood the Q. In my opinion, yes. There is no other way to get a sound (ie, based on sheer deductive coherence) grasp of the subject. So, attack the issue for yourself:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.sg/2009/07/urs-crash-course-in-sound-economics.html
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.sg/2011/04/on-monetary-restandardization.html
The first one has a very minor error btw - prob a typo. Good exercise to find it. A friend of mine just pointed it out to me.
So, can you explain how arguing over the definition of a word can ever pay rent?
Well, in a sense every definition carries an implicit assertion that the described object corresponds to a cluster in thing space. See also 37 ways that words can be wrong.
Re Physics, please correct me as required but in the way I use the phrase "first principles" here, Physics does not have any first principles. Physics is observation, hypothesis, experimentation and repeat. After a certain hypothesis has sufficient amount of experimental proof behind it, it becomes a theory and thus the foundation for further work. And occasionally, we find that there is a variable missing in the theory as the experiments did not test the situations that that variable speaks to. Then we test to tease out the nuances of that aspect of reality. And so on.
Economics has first principles, in the sense I use the phrase. Thus the Q: What is an economy? It leads to those first principles and then deduction covers the rest. But one can of course get the first principles wrong and the deduction is then useless.
Yes it does. They're just so implicit in our intuition about how the world works that we don't notice them. For example, consider all the implicit assumptions necessary for statements like "these two sticks have the same length" to be meaningful.
So, why does physics have no such first principles but economics does?