Are states' rights more important than human lives?

[MikeH]

This is Ben. He's prepared to make whatever mental twists and logical leaps it's necessary to make to convince himself his viewpoint is reasonable and consistent.

[Ben Kenobi]

You'd imagine those that created the social science would know best.

So did Aristotle. Argument works just as well for him.

I didn't realize Aristotle created heavy objects, or the Earth.

He was only the greatest authority in natural philosophy for 1500 years.

Do you give the same deference to History being a science?

Yes, I believe history ought to operate on empirical lines whenever possible. Information on primary sources is the only reliable basis for history.

Then the information that is not empirical is unreliable. Strange statement for a Christian to make.

I believe that the most reliable information concerning secular matters must be derived empirically

Did you miss this caveat? I'm a Thomist. I believe in two spheres. Theology isn't reductible to empiricism. Economics is.

[kentonio]

Economic systems represent something far more fundemental and ideological. Which the pope obviously realizes being a) a real Christian and b) not a ****ing moron.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So did Aristotle. Argument works just as well for him.

He was only the greatest authority in natural philosophy for 1500 years.

Aristotle created nature?! I've been worshipping the wrong person!

Yes, I believe history ought to operate on empirical lines whenever possible. Information on primary sources is the only reliable basis for history.

So Socrates' arguments don't exist? After all, his dialogues are based on secondary sources (ie, Plato's writings & he likely wasn't there for all of these dialogues)

Did you miss this caveat? I'm a Thomist. I believe in two spheres. Theology isn't reductible to empiricism. Economics is.

As you well know empiricism leads to a rejection of religion - as saying that all knowledge is ascertained to sensory experience except this one thing leaves most unsatisfied.

Besides, economics uses more rationalism than empiricism anyways.

[Ben Kenobi]

Economic systems represent something far more fundemental and ideological.

Margaritaville nailed your vision on economics perfectly.

[Sava]

This is Ben. He's prepared to make whatever mental twists and logical leaps it's necessary to make to convince himself his viewpoint is reasonable and consistent.

I love the dance he does. I'd love to dissect his brain.

[Ben Kenobi]

Aristotle created nature?! I've been worshipping the wrong person!

Your argument - the people who discovered economics argued x, ergo x is true.

My argument, science moves on. Aristotle was the foremost authority on natural philosophy, yet empiricism determined that many of the things he taught were actually incorrect. Ergo, it seems reasonable to postulate the same for economics.

So Socrates' arguments don't exist? After all, his dialogues are based on secondary sources (ie, Plato's writings)

They are less reliable than primary sources. They are also the only extant source we have on Plato, and so remain the foremost authority.

As you well know empiricism leads to a rejection of religion

According to whom? Newton? Descartes? Leibnitz?

Improper understanding of Empiricism leads to a rejection of religion - but Empiricism itself never arrogates itself into theology. Unless it can be reproductible, it's not empirical. You can't stuff God in a box.

- as saying that all knowledge is ascertained to sensory experience except this one thing leaves most unsatisfied.

Good thing Christians teach that Christ was a man, that he did come to earth, that he lived and died just as we do.

Besides, economics uses more rationalism than empiricism anyways.

Erm, no, it doesn't. By definition that's impossible. You don't understand empiricism very well, do you Imran?

[Sava]

[...] ergo [...]

[...] Ergo [...]

[Imran Siddiqui]

My argument, science moves on. Aristotle was the foremost authority on natural philosophy, yet empiricism determined that many of the things he taught were actually incorrect. Ergo, it seems reasonable to postulate the same for economics.

And yet things like the Vienna school continues on, even though a lot of the stuff they taught was incorrect. (FWIW, the Vienna School is anti-empiricism, FWIW).

According to whom? Newton? Descartes? Leibnitz?

Improper understanding of Empiricism leads to a rejection of religion - but Empiricism itself never arrogates itself into theology. Unless it can be reproductible, it's not empirical. You can't stuff God in a box.

Sorry, but when you say that everything should be reduceable to experience and then try to carve out something, people are going to ask why is that carved out. Simply saying "because it is" won't work.

Erm, no, it doesn't. By definition that's impossible. You don't understand empiricism very well, do you Imran?

Only one of us has an economics degree, and it isn't you. Plenty of economic school are rationalist instead of empiracist - Vienna School that I mentioned above being one of them. Most economic theories are based on rationalism. They may use empirical data to validated their rationalist theories - of course one can twist the data any way you want (one of the flaws of empiricism in the social sciences, FWIW).

[Sava]

Only one of us has an economics degree, and it isn't you.

BOOM!

BOOM!

Did you see what he did there?

BOOM!

[giblets]

This is Ben. He's prepared to make whatever mental twists and logical leaps it's necessary to make to convince himself his viewpoint is reasonable and consistent.

Yes. The only problem with Ben endorsing an empirical approach to economics is that on every issue Ben just interprets the available data to fit his bias.

[Ben Kenobi]

And yet things like the Vienna school continues on, even though a lot of the stuff they taught was incorrect.

(FWIW, the Vienna School is anti-empiricism, FWIW

Erm, no, they aren't.

Sorry, but when you say that everything should be reduceable to experience

Damn that sounds like a strawman. Did I say that everything was reductable to empiricism? No. Did I say that I believed economics is? Absolutely. And empiricism!= experience. You can look at a tree, but that doesn't make it an empiricial observation. The observation must be measureable.

Simply saying "because it is" won't work.

God isn't reproduceable. You can't get God to respond the same way to the same things. Or even get God to respond at all. Ergo studying God cannot be empirical.

Only one of us has an economics degree

And it's clear you weren't taught what empiricism actually means.

of course one can twist the data any way you want

That's a contention of Marxists. Marxists reject the concept that it is possible to obtain reliable economic information. It's also why Marxism as an economic theory simply doesn't work.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes. The only problem with Ben endorsing an empirical approach to economics is that on every issue Ben just interprets the available data to fit his bias.

I'm the only one in this thread asserting that we can obtain reliable economic data, fwiw.

[Ben Kenobi]

Did you see what he did there?

Made an argument from authority?

I have a history degree. Imran's talking about the history of economics. Which means we're playing in my field.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Erm, no, they aren't.

Yes they are. That's actually the main complaint against them. But if you wish to be willfully blind, that's your problem.

Damn that sounds like a strawman. Did I say that everything was reductable to empiricism? No. Did I say that I believed economics is? Absolutely. And empiricism!= experience. You can look at a tree, but that doesn't make it an empiricial observation. The observation must be measureable.

If you believe social sciences are reducable to empiricism, you are dangerously close to saying just about everything is.

God isn't reproduceable. You can't get God to respond the same way to the same things. Or even get God to respond at all. Ergo studying God cannot be empirical.

Do you realize just how difficult it is to get economic conditions to be "reproduceable" or to even have the same things in order a policy respond the same way? This is why so much of economics is based on models (ie, rationalism). Because it is nigh impossible to have the same series of economic events.

That's a contention of Marxists. Marxists reject the concept that it is possible to obtain reliable economic information. It's also why Marxism as an economic theory simply doesn't work.

It is amusing that you don't think that people can twist economic data to support their own models.