From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:01:03 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <9204081447.AA02160@xuucp.ch.apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM writes:
>
> 
>>>  "Logical consistency" requires a set of formal knowledge to which to
>>>  apply rules of logic.  Such knowledge exists in rigorous form in, 
>>>  say, mathematics, or in physics and chemistry.   But not in economics.
>>
>>Not true. Much of  mathematics is far from rigorous and relies on intuition.
>>What can be formalized is rather trivial.
>
>   Maybe at the most theoretical level, like physics.  But I would 
>   contest this for practical examples.  In my area (computer graphics)
>   we make extensive use of linear algebra and geometry.  And the 
>   mere fact that it is computable in a literal sense attests to 
>   the formal structure of it.  

Sure, what works is "correct", and what doesn't work is "incorrect". But,
mathematics, like much of life is experimental. We try something and 
see if it works or not. For simple subjects like mathematics, we may have 
good methods for deciding whether or not something will work before we try
it (e.g., don't start looking for a second even prime), but we still need to
rely on intuition and blind luck in addition to knowledge 
when we try something new.


>>Let's apply your argument to the American revolution. How many working models of
>>republics were in existence in 1776? How rigorous was the development of the science
>>of government? Well, the answers are obvious, so, by your logic Jefferson, Adams,
>>and Paine were intellectually dishonest for proposing such a radical new system.
>
>   Good example.  The American Revolution JUST HAPPENED to turn out well.
>   But we only know this in hindsight.  And we also know (in hindsight)
>   that the vast majority of violent revolutions in human history are
>   either put down, or succeed militarily only to result in chaos or
>   the imposition of a new set of tyrants.   Someone may have been 
>   emotionally swayed by the romantic arguments of "Jefferson, Adams,
>   and Paine", but it's quite easy to poke holes in, or note the
>   vagueness in, their arguments intellectually.   

And those who followed the other side? Were the tories intellectually
honest?  After all, the arguments in favor of following laws proclaimed
by a nutty english king cannot have been models of rational thought.
So, either you believe that the divine right of kings is intellectually
rigorous, or you believe that the only intellectually honest response to the
American revolution was to sit inertly until the experiment resolved itself.


>   It is interesting, nay fascinating, that we see here the EXACT same 
>   confusion on this topic emanating from both the left and the right.
>   Examples like cars, electric light bulbs, and American Revolutions
>   are very individual examples of success in classes of endeavor
>   (e.g.'s, invention, political revolution) in which the majority
>   of attempts are failures.  As such, instead of giving credence
>   to the argument that we should be less skeptical of new ideas 
>   they only serve to reinforce a thinking person's skepticism.


Smugness is no substitute for rational thought. Let's apply the same
standards to the argument for leaving things as they are. What's your sample
space for concluding that the current US economic system will work well for
the next, say, 50 years? Remember, extrapolation from previous history
should be justified by showing that such new developments as the end of the
cold war and the decline of US manufacturing can be discounted. Not
very strong on the data front eh? And then how about a formal system of
deduction which will prove that we are not heading straight into another
dark age or an ecological catastrophe? Don't have that either, I assume.


Let's face it, your position boils down to "I'm alright, jack". And what
appears to you as "caution" may appear as recklessness to a planetary
climatologist or a schoolteacher in the south bronx.
It's fine to be skeptical, and if an idea has been shown by history to
be terrible (e.g. command economies) or seems to be internally inconsistent
(e.g. "libertarianism") then, by all means, critique it. But
don't set up general standards of proof which you cannot meet.
As Tom Jefferson pointed out, people are more likely to stick with the evils
they know than to embrace radical change, but  that don't necessarily make
them right.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.econ