Ideology vs. Free Thought?

20Cent

Valmont wrote: »

I see Bill Clinton misunderstands the word 'ideology' just as much as he misunderstands the word 'is'.

"You tend to govern by assertion and attacks."

The Bishop!

'Nature abhors a vacuum.'

I heard that from a well known libertarian believe it or not.

Valmont

I see how 20Cent has gradually started using the words 'ideology' and 'ideological' as signifying anyone who isn't swayed by his arguments or disagrees with him. This usage of the word is inaccurate:

Wikipedia wrote:

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things (compare worldview) as in several philosophical tendencies (see political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization).

Now tell me this quote from Bill Clinton doesn't reflect the ideology of the democratic party:

Bill Clinton wrote:

Banning human cloning reflects our humanity. It is the right thing to do. Creating a child through this new method calls into question our most fundamental beliefs. It has the potential to threaten the sacred family bonds at the very core of our ideals and our society...

To reiterate, an ideological person is not somebody who won't agree with your line of reasoning.

KyussBishop

20Cent wrote: »

"You tend to govern by assertion and attacks."

It's a good summation of how an ideology is usually pushed; facts and information are shaped to fit the ideology (and contradicting facts/information consciously ignored), and the ideology is held as true by default in the promoters eyes.

When arguments in favour of it start getting filled with fallacious assertions, personal attacks, and other obfuscatory methods of trying to muddy the waters or derail discussion, that must require either a certain level of cognitive dissonance, or a conscious knowledge that what is being promoted is false.

When you start seeing a conflict of interest in what a person is promoting, and their own personal situation, it's hard not to suspect a dishonest, conscious knowledge that what they are promoting is false.

20Cent

Valmont wrote: »

I see how 20Cent has gradually started using the words 'ideology' and 'ideological' as signifying anyone who isn't swayed by his arguments or disagrees with him. This usage of the word is inaccurate:

That's an assertion.

Valmont wrote: »

Now tell me this quote from Bill Clinton doesn't reflect the ideology of the democratic party:

Human cloning? Not sure where you're going with that one.

Valmont wrote: »

To reiterate, an ideological person is not somebody who won't agree with your line of reasoning.

Who is saying that?
Another assertion?

a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason:

Valmont

20Cent wrote: »

Who is saying that?
Another assertion?

a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason:

I quoted Wikipedia's definition of 'ideology' to demonstrate that your usage of the word is wildly inaccurate. That was my support, and your specious use of the term is my reason. You use the word 'ideologue' as a pejorative term to signify your ideological opponents, the libertarians. How can we have a meaningful discussion about ideology if you only use it disparagingly towards someone who you feel isn't swayed by the power of your arguments?

The Free Dictionary wrote:

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Although how you can still claim that you have none of the above is unfathomable to me. What's the point of being pragmatic if you have no ideology to guide your efforts? Do pragmatists have no beliefs concerning what should be the proper political order? Do pragmatists have no doctrine specifying how economic affairs should be organised? Do pragmatists have no vision of how one person should treat another? I'm wondering what the point of being a pragmatist even is now!

20Cent

Valmont wrote: »

I quoted Wikipedia's definition of 'ideology' to demonstrate that your usage of the word is wildly inaccurate. That was my support, and your specious use of the term is my reason. You use the word 'ideologue' as a pejorative term to signify your ideological opponents, the libertarians. How can we have a meaningful discussion about ideology if you only use it disparagingly towards someone who you feel isn't swayed by the power of your arguments?

I'm disparaging to all ideologies not just libertarians. Labelling oneself and painting yourself into an ideological corner is inherintly stupid imo. It is a bit pointless discussing anything with the ideologue same as with a religious fanatic because it doen't make for rational discussion they have already made their minds up and no amount of evidence will change that.

Valmont wrote: »

Although how you can still claim that you have none of the above is unfathomable to me. What's the point of being pragmatic if you have no ideology to guide your efforts? Do pragmatists have no beliefs concerning what should be the proper political order? Do pragmatists have no doctrine specifying how economic affairs should be organised? Do pragmatists have no vision of how one person should treat another? I'm wondering what the point of being a pragmatist even is now!

You think pragmatism is an ideology in itself? Fair enough but I think the pregmatist has a much wider selection of solutions to problems and isn't tied down to one ideology for everything which is a good thing.

Kinski

Ideology is a fairly dirty word in popular discussion about politics - "bloody ideologues!" - but it doesn't have to have those negative connotations. I'd argue that one of the broad strengths of leftist discourse is that the concept of ideology (in a much more technical and heavily-theorised sense) is so deeply ingrained. Ideology is something which we all have as individuals, and which permeates the social and cultural spheres we inhabit, and the institutions which we interact with and through. An awareness of ideology involves an awareness of your own preconceptions and biases, an awareness that you're bringing a particular set of subjective experiences, ideas, impressions to your analysis of the situation.

The problem with bandying it about in the way Clinton is doing in the quote 20cent provides is that he's trying to push the whole notion of ideology away from him; it's something somebody else, with some other (skewed) view, has, and not a problem for me. The ideologues who most need a mirror held up to their own faces are the ones who insist they have no ideology at all.

20Cent

Kinski wrote: »

The problem with bandying it about in the way Clinton is doing in the quote 20cent provides is that he's trying to push the whole notion of ideology away from him; it's something somebody else, with some other (skewed) view, has, and not a problem for me. The ideologues who most need a mirror held up to their own faces are the ones who insist they have no ideology at all.

So what ideology would you say Clinton follows?

He seems pretty pragmatic to me he was very good at bipartisanship working with the republicans when he was president. I think you mean values as in we all have basic values that we have but ideology would mean something different, to me anyway.
Say there is a situation the ideologue already has their solution decided, other ways are dismissed because they are not consistent with the ideology. The pragmatist has a far larger toolkit to find solutions and find a rational answer for that particular situation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Assertion and attacks.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are you saying libertarians aren't ideolgues?

Occupy isn't far left and doesn't want to "overthrow of the free market and massive confiscation of private wealth" lots of libertarians involved in it actually, thats just an assertion.

Who do you mean when you say "the left"?
It seems to cover almost everyone.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"if you've got an ideology, you've already got your mind made up. You know all the answers and that makes evidence irrelevant and arguments a waste of time".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That Clinton quote makes more sense every post you make.

Why do you object to being called an ideologue you seem to think its a brave thing to do?
Only cowards don't follow one and are just "populist". You even managed to get marxixm into it!!

southsiderosie

20Cent wrote: »

"if you've got an ideology, you've already got your mind made up. You know all the answers and that makes evidence irrelevant and arguments a waste of time".

MOD NOTE:

This kind of stuff isn't engagement, and it certainly isn't appropriate for the political theory forum. If you (or anyone else for that matter) don't have a substantive response to other posters, then think twice before hitting reply.

KyussBishop

Had a long reply there which probably doesn't fit too well after the mod warning, but summarizing some of it:
Clintons quote from earlier is more about what kind of behaviour you see from a typical ideologue, rather than any kind of definition of it; as elaborated on way earlier in the thread, one of the defining parts of the more common use of the word ideology isn't "a set of beliefs and ideas" but really more a judgment of how well a particular set of views fits the ideologies of pragmatism/empiricism/falsifiability and well...the general scientific method (an ideology in itself, but it is one which has achieved uncontestable credibility through its results).

A set of views is judged by how closely it tries to follow that, and if a set of views does not follow it it has less credibility (but not none, as there are some fields which have not yet evolved enough to be adapted to the scientific method), and if a set of views depends upon contradicting that it is judged as having little-to-no credibility.

An ideologue (in the pejorative sense) usually depends upon arguments which, in whole or in part, has to reject or directly contradict part of the scientific method, or relies on fallacious reasoning otherwise not commensurate with scientific principles; this fits pretty well with Libertarianism, which rejects empiricism (except where it can find supporting evidence).

However, an ideologue is also very well described by their typical behaviour, which is usually a much more enlightening way to look at it than any base definition; this can be pretty diverse though, but it generally boils down to many many variations of well crafted fallacious arguments (often knowingly false), often with a conflict of interest underlying their motives (though doesn't always mean they don't believe it themselves as well).

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Tbh, I think he is looking at it the wrong way. I'm sure if you looked at quotes from Tories when the rate was raised you'd probably get the same accusations at Labour.

The way I'd look at it is, is there really that much difference between the 3 main parties there or indeed here? All 3 are pretty similar and you could probably point out the major differences on one hand, the one thing they all share is telling the electorate what they want to hear.

Its a far cry from the 80's with Thatcher and Foot. FG are an exception in a way, ditched a popular politician and liberal strategy, suffered electorally and only recovered because of FF failure.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You do an extremely analogous thing, by trying to pejoratively pin people to the ideology of Marxism (so unsubtly, that you do it even when they specifically reject it and point out that they disagree with key underpinning parts of it).

Effectively, you try to pin other people to a flawed ideology, to try and normalize/legitimize your own admitted adherence to an ideology, as if that's ok.
It's like saying "oh but everyone's ideological so there's nothing wrong with it" when that is false, because people who adhere (or at least ascribe) to (roughly) the scientific method and scientific principles, are not ideological by the most used definition of the word.

Your arguments also heavily match the behavior of an ideologue as well, taking your own ideology as 'true by default', mostly refusing to discuss it without heavy use of fallacious methods of argument, trying to divide discussion along emotional/social lines (the "Us vs Them" stuff), and even going so far as to reject empiricism (additionally, Libertarian views in their current form, also depend upon rejecting falsifiability too).

Permabear wrote: »

In a political world without ideology, politicians and parties all cluster in the center, vying for the same voters on the basis of personality and populist policies. The voter winds up with no meaningful choice — and the end result of that is growing disillusionment with democracy itself.

Believe it or not, one does require the courage of one's convictions not to modify one's position every time a new poll or a new focus group suggests that there is an advantage to be gained.

By the definition of ideology as "a set of beliefs and ideas", yes; by the definition of ideology as "non-adherence to scientific principles", no.

In the latter case (ideological as not adhering to scientific principles; usually motivated by ulterior motives where the followers don't even believe in their ideology), there have been any number of massively warped forms of government, from Facism, oligopolistic/autocratic Communism/Socialism, and oligopolistic/autocratic Capitalism.

An ideology that deliberately does not adhere (or even ascribe) to scientific principles, can be warped to whatever purpose it's proponents desire, because it doesn't have to have any scientific consistency; when science itself is rejected, usually it's an excuse covering up ulterior motives.


My views on Libertarianism are that it is ideologically inflexible (i.e. strictly not adhering to scientific principles in key ways), for the political motivation of removing political power from government, and letting that political power fall in the hands of powerful enterprise, solely for the benefit of the individuals in influential positions in business who stand to gain from this.

If the grand promises Libertarianism makes (mostly depending upon efficient markets, which is itself debunked) would turn out to be true, the above may not come to pass, but there are so many problems with the scientific consistency of the theory, and claims it makes underpinned by that, that it just is not scientifically credible, so that (to me) puts ulterior motives as the prime motivating force behind it.

This is completely at odds with the anti-government stance of its ideology, because it gradually puts even more significant political power collectively in the hands of influential individuals in key areas of the market.

It's no coincidence really, that some of the biggest supporters of Libertarianism have a big conflict of interest, where they stand to gain personally from its policies.

ButtimersLaw

20Cent wrote: »

Say there is a situation the ideologue already has their solution decided, other ways are dismissed because they are not consistent with the ideology.

Valmont wrote: »

Originally Posted by Bill Clinton
Banning human cloning reflects our humanity. It is the right thing to do. Creating a child through this new method calls into question our most fundamental beliefs. It has the potential to threaten the sacred family bonds at the very core of our ideals and our society...

It’s revealing 20Cent don’t discuss the above quote and we can all assume that might be because it seems not to agree with his views on Clinton.

I guess Clinton is like many of us, not 100% ideology free, but someone who struggles with balancing priorities and ideals and others expectations and other influences.

Most politicians have to make sacrifices for their position, or for their advancement and so on, and we are surrounded by examples of that in our papers, radios and tv’s every day, when politicians say they believe and support a policy, when as a person they do not but as a politician they have to.

That you appear to not want to address a remark from Clinton which looks like ideology suggests you are unable to see him in a complex light, and just want to believe he is 100% ideology free.

Like most politicians, Clinton would probably have said black was white to get elected, which is not to say he is a bad person, just someone whose ambition was the driving force which ran roughshod over his other characteristics.

Valmont

KyussBishop, how do you reconcile your views with the fact that one of the (if not the) foremost enlightenment philosophers (and thus a very important intellectual founder of the modern libertarian movement), John Locke, was also a committed empiricist? Have you gained an insight that proves John Locke's system as entirely contradictory? Because that is what you are implying.

In your eager attempt to do away with libertarianism as simply 'unscientific', do you not realise that the doctrines of falsifiability and empiricism are actually at odds with each other? Karl Popper devoted decades to this problem and here you are saying things like "Libertarians don't adhere to the principles of empiricism and falsifiability"; as if you just add them together and hey, presto, the scientific method!

You're not fooling anyone that libertarianism (all of it) is 'unscientific' because (1) as mentioned above, there is considerable doubt that you understand the concepts you are so eager to use as a weapon against an ideology clearly at odds with your own and (2) you've never really stated how libertarianism isn't scientific!

This is basically a modern and poorly worked out version of the historic argument that political position X is inherently wrong because it's 'unholy'. You won't stamp out debate that easily.

Valmont

I have thought of a thread title which I think suits everyone's needs:

"Should ideologues stay in the closet? Or is it safe to come out?"

Maybe I'll send it to Time Magazine.

KyussBishop

Empiricism and Falsifiability are not at odds with each other, they are both tools used as part of the scientific method, the former to collect well-grounded information to construct a theory, and the latter is used to determine the credibility of a theory based on the falsifiable claims it makes (it having little-to-no credibility where it does not predict anything, or where its predictions fail).

Economics has not graduated to the stage where it can become proper science, but Libertarianism coupled with Austrian economics stands apart in this regard, because it rejects even attempts to move towards empiricism and falsifiability (which means it rejects the idea the theory can be falsified based on evidence; just think of how ridiculous that is for a moment).

You can't really step around that; by any scientific judgment the 'praxeology' framework underlying Libertarianisms economics is not credible, it explicitly rejects the scientific method.

That means Libertarianism is inherently unscientific, and it does not even attempt to reconcile itself with the scientific method, it deliberately does not; to adopt a Libertarian society is to permanently discard the idea that economics should strive to adhere to scientific methods (and strive to someday become an actual science).


If the standards of the scientific method are unattainable for a theory or field of study (like economics), that's fine so long as it is something that is strived for (we have to make do with what philosophical tools we have), but Libertarianism is directly at odds with the scientific method and rejects key parts of it, so it is simply not credible to begin with.


Just think of how bonkers that is for a while, that science itself is rejected (do you know any other frameworks of ideas that reject science, and maintain credibility?); this is the theory that proponents would run our entire society on, with the belief that it will 'just work', even in the face of contradicting data and historical evidence.

When science itself is rejected like that, it should make anyone suspicious, and the first place to look is at peoples motives, and whether or not they have any conflict of interest; why do so many of the Libertarian movements prime funders and supporters, sit in a position where they stand a lot to gain personally, from its policies?

It's just simply not credible that the movement is underpinned by a true belief in its philosophies (that fly in the face of science), rather than being underpinned by the (much more rational conclusion, in terms of self interest) prime supporters potential to personally gain from it (which would be the perfect example of ideological behaviour, in the sense that the term is often used).

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I consider someone who applies a set of rules to every issue in order to evaluate what is the right solution to be tying one or both hands behind their backs. They have already decided despite whatever evidence or proof is put before them. It is a closed minded method. Following something in a highly axiomatic manner is not conducive to deductive thought. Many possible solutions are disregarded, it means literally decreasing your options. I'd prefer if reason and logic is applied to the available evidence to find the best solution which could be a mixture of things left and/or right.

So we have Kyuss applying a set of rules and thinking Lib is at fault for not applying them(with no basis for this assertion); then we have 20cent accusing Lib of applying rules and saying it's at fault for applying them (with no basis for this assertion).

Good to clear that one up

20Cent

bluewolf wrote: »

So we have Kyuss applying a set of rules and thinking Lib is at fault for not applying them(with no basis for this assertion); then we have 20cent accusing Lib of applying rules and saying it's at fault for applying them (with no basis for this assertion).

Good to clear that one up

Two totally different points.

Kyuss is talking about how Austrian economists don't value scientific or empirical evidence for their beliefs which is true.
I was referring to how they apply a set of axioms (called praxeology) to deduce human behavior. Which they also do.

Just to clear that one up.

KyussBishop

bluewolf wrote: »

So we have Kyuss applying a set of rules and thinking Lib is at fault for not applying them(with no basis for this assertion); then we have 20cent accusing Lib of applying rules and saying it's at fault for applying them (with no basis for this assertion).

Good to clear that one up

Is there a better set of rules other than the scientific method, to set as a standard to apply/compare a theory to?

Libertarianism is free to apply to whatever philosophical principles it wants (as it does), but the credibility of all theories are typically judged based upon the principles of the scientific method, and how well they adhere to them (or how well they aspire to them, when it's not possible to adhere).

If something is directly at odds with those principles, is it not correct to say that it is not scientifically credible?


What other societally prominent ideological frameworks can you think of, which deliberately reject scientific principles? (are any of them respectable or credible?)

Eliot Rosewater

KyussBishop wrote: »

Is there a better set of rules other than the scientific method, to set as a standard to apply/compare a theory to?

Libertarianism is free to apply to whatever philosophical principles it wants (as it does), but the credibility of all theories are typically judged based upon the principles of the scientific method, and how well they adhere to them (or how well they aspire to them, when it's not possible to adhere).

The "credibility" of political beliefs are most certainly not judged on the basis of the scientific method. The scientific method is only applicable when there is a shared goal and multiple approaches to it. In science, the shared goal is the determination of truth. The multiple approaches are the different theories designed to account for empirical evidence. Newtonian mechanics and general relativity can both be approaches to the same problem of determining the motions of the planets. On the basis of the scientific method we judge these on their ability to account for the (same) truth and choose the theory which performs best.

In politics it is not like this because there is no single shared goal. Different people have different ideas of what should be achieved. A social conservative might have as his goal the restriction of marriage to one man and one women; a social liberal, the extension of marriage to two people of the same sex. There is no universal goal, so the scientific method is not applicable. We judge a piece of legislation on its ability to satisfy the desires of either the conservative or the liberal -- there is no objective sense in which it is right or wrong.

We can attempt to apply the scientific method in a political discussion when someone makes a statement of the form "X causes Y", but in general political discussions are about what is right, not what is true. Here, as we have seen, the scientific method is not applicable.

Eliot Rosewater

This leads us on to the question of when the scientific method can be applied to statements of the form "X causes Y". (For example, "a minimum wage causes unemployment".) Your claim is that any economic statement can be tested through the scientific method; the Austrian claim is the opposite.

My chief concern with your point of view is that I cannot see any way in which a central concept in scientific practice - the isolation of effect - can be implemented in economics. Suppose we are physicists attempting to determine the effect of striking a snooker ball with another. We set up a pool table and place the two balls on it. Suppose the room we were performing the test in has a large fan blowing wind on the table. Before the tests begin we will surely have to remove this fan in order to ensure that, roughly speaking, the only force acting on the first snooker ball will be the force of the second ball striking it. Equally, we will have to ensure that the table is sufficiently level for gravitational effects to be negligible. The point here is that we isolate the effect of the second snooker ball striking the first. We eliminate all other effects so that any subsequent events (the snooker ball rolling away) can be attributed solely to the effect we are testing.

In what sense can we do this in economics? Every year thousands of pieces of economic regulation are made law; thousands of businesses are set up and closed down; the population changes, and the working population changes even faster. The incentives driving individual people change almost daily: prices go up and down; social welfare rates are changed; employment possibilities change, as does the desirably of taking welfare instead of work. There are external factors that have major effects, such as the weather, and equally large internal effects, such as changes of government. In this chaotic system, how precisely is it possible to test the effect of one given economic policy?

The Austrian solution is seemingly to focus on reasoning. It is not a concept alien to science. In fact, the easiest way to show that a 10kg ball and a 100kg ball fall with equal speed is not to climb a tower and throw balls off repeatedly. It is to reason that if it were that case that the 10kg ball went slower, then tying it to the 100kg ball should slow the latter down. But the combined system weighs 110kg, so now it should all be going faster.

I wonder have you actually read any books on Austrian economics? Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson is an easy to read convincing exposition of some "Austrian" ideas - such as that stimulus is not generally good - using reason. One should at least read it in the spirit of the scientific method and see if its approach is sufficient for believing economic facts.

KyussBishop

Sorry but just because a topic largely covers politics, does not mean it can discard science (especially when we are talking about economics, where theories make a lot of definite claims); politics (and the arguments underpinning political arguments) can and should be backed scientifically.

Your posts are largely an excuse for discarding the idea that Libertarianism should adhere or aspire to the scientific method; there is no reason at all why an economic theory should not strive to meet the standards of the scientific method, whereas Libertarianism explicitly rejects it.


I'm not claiming anything about individual economic statements either, I am pointing out that Austrian economics (and Libertarianism) explicitly rejects the scientific method, including the idea that empirical evidence can falsify its theory.
In other words, Austrians/Libertarians reject the very idea that any claims the theory makes can be falsified using evidence; which is completely ridiculous.

The way scientific theories (or theories aspiring to the scientific method) work, is that they make falsifiable predictions, and if empirical evidence comes up that is contradictory to the theory, it has been falsified.
Libertarians reject this idea, empirical evidence does not apply to their theory, as far as they are concerned; this means they can make any claims they want, and assert them as true, and evidence to the contrary can be ignored.

Doesn't matter how consistent a theories logical framework looks, the bigger your logical framework gets the more likely it is to have an unseen fault, which is why you need empirical evidence to support it and why you need falsifiable claims/predictions.
Fairly silly to reject these principles really as Austrians have no problem using empirical evidence to (rightly) falsify and criticize neoclassical/mainstream economics.


It's quite amusing to see such a straight-out rejection of the scientific method really, kind of like throwing your hands up and saying "oh well looks like economics isn't a proper science yet, therefore we're free to completely reject the scientific method altogether".

Eliot Rosewater

KyussBishop wrote: »

Sorry but just because a topic largely covers politics, does not mean it can discard science (especially when we are talking about economics, where theories make a lot of definite claims); politics (and the arguments underpinning political arguments) can and should be backed scientifically.

I have not claimed otherwise. I have just observed that claims that assert truths ("X causes Y") are not solely what political discussions are about. Generally, these discussions are about what is right or wrong, and there is no objective criterion for whether any set of political beliefs is right or wrong. Thus your claim that political beliefs are ultimately subject to testing through the scientific method is incorrect. At best you can say that certain claims that are made can be tested - but not beliefs overall.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Your posts are largely an excuse for discarding the idea that Libertarianism should adhere or aspire to the scientific method; there is no reason at all why an economic theory should not strive to meet the standards of the scientific method, whereas Libertarianism explicitly rejects it.

The bias with which you are approaching this subject is extremely clear through your stylization of my argument against the applicability of the scientific method in economics as an "excuse". As regards reasons for doubting the method's applicability, I have given you one above. Given that it deals with a core part of the scientific method - isolating effects - I consider it a rather strong reason. I notice that your post didn't actual deal with this, but merely restated your beliefs. This would be equivalent to a pope reigning during the scientific revolution "disproving" Gallileo's ideas by merely restating the geocentric position. I invite you to tell me why my reason for being skeptical of the use of empirical evidence to support specific economic claims is flawed. Why not be scientific about the debate?

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's quite amusing to see such a straight-out rejection of the scientific method really, kind of like throwing your hands up and saying "oh well looks like economics isn't a proper science yet, therefore we're free to completely reject the scientific method altogether".

Not believing the scientific method is generally applicable to economics seemingly offends your common sense. Given your support of scientific attitudes to debate, I'm surprised you put so much stock in your common sense. The example I presented earlier of the 10kg ball and the 100kg ball falling at different speeds offends my common sense, but I completely accept the argument. This is a part of science and academic discussion generally. We go beyond what instinctively appears to be the case and using reason and (when applicable) empirical evidence, discard our common sense and other instinctually held beliefs. To do otherwise is to be anti-intellectual.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I have not claimed otherwise. I have just observed that claims that assert truths ("X causes Y") are not solely what political discussions are about. Generally, these discussions are about what is right or wrong, and there is no objective criterion for whether any set of political beliefs is right or wrong. Thus your claim that political beliefs are ultimately subject to testing through the scientific method is incorrect. At best you can say that certain claims that are made can be tested - but not beliefs overall.

That's a silly cop-out which tries to make it a matter of 'rights and wrongs' i.e. opinions, when the claims made by the theory are a matter of fact whose credibility is subject to question by the scientific method.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The bias with which you are approaching this subject is extremely clear through your stylization of my argument against the applicability of the scientific method in economics as an "excuse". As regards reasons for doubting the method's applicability, I have given you one above. Given that it deals with a core part of the scientific method - isolating effects - I consider it a rather strong reason. I notice that your post didn't actual deal with this, but merely restated your beliefs. This would be equivalent to a pope reigning during the scientific revolution "disproving" Gallileo's ideas by merely restating the geocentric position. I invite you to tell me why my reason for being skeptical of the use of empirical evidence to support specific economic claims is flawed. Why not be scientific about the debate?

Heh, ironic much? In its rejection of empirical evidence, Libertarianism is precisely like the Popes refutation of Gallileo's ideas; it's like the Pope reasserting his own beliefs without any kind of need for scientific backing, because the beliefs are consistent with his ideological framework.

Your entire argument here rests on the idea that you can only try to disprove a theory from the ground up on microeconomic effects, not by disproving its claims on macroeconomic effects, which is a completely silly proposition.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Not believing the scientific method is generally applicable to economics seemingly offends your common sense. Given your support of scientific attitudes to debate, I'm surprised you put so much stock in your common sense. The example I presented earlier of the 10kg ball and the 100kg ball falling at different speeds offends my common sense, but I completely accept the argument. This is a part of science and academic discussion generally. We go beyond what instinctively appears to be the case and using reason and (when applicable) empirical evidence, discard our common sense and other instinctually held beliefs. To do otherwise is to be anti-intellectual.

Heh, you act as if Libertarianism is trying to be faithful or aspire to the scientific method, when it takes the stance of rejecting it completely; this puts it squarely in-line beside any theology you can think of.

It would be like Gallileo chucking in his research, saying that the universe is too complicated to understand, therefore we should not pursue further theoretical development which would (eventually) lead to Physics as a science, and we should adopt the Pope's view in spite of evidence; it's that with economics, just throwing your hands up and rejecting the idea that it can develop into a proper science over time, but even worse going backwards and rejecting existing scientific methods that are applicable as well.

Valmont

KyussBishop I think you are confusing the scientific method with positivism; the two are not one and the same.

Also, you keep stating that libertarianism rejects the scientific method completely, explicitly, etc -- you have not provided a single shred of evidence to support this assertion. Which isn't very scientific when you think about it.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Keyne's pushed economics a long long way towards becoming a proper science, and todays spiritual continuation of his original economic ideas, Post-Keynesianism, is continuing that push towards making it a proper science today.

As acceptable as it is for the social sciences to (as a practical matter) not adhere 100% to the scientific method, since they are generally not well developed enough to become a hard science yet, it is another thing altogether how Libertarianism explicitly rejects key parts of the scientific method.

Also, as much as Peter Schiff (rightly) warned of the impending economic crisis, he also (wrongly) predicated massive hyperinflation in the wake of quantative easing, which is one of the big failed predictions of Austrian economics right now; Austrian economics is a good predictor of the lead up to a crisis, but less of a good one on the effects after, which why is why its business cycle theory is considered outdated now.
While Schiff did warn of the coming crisis, Steve Keen (Post Keynesian) is one of the few people who actually attempted to model it and specifically predict its arrival, with some accuracy.

You are completely right though, of the exclusionary nature of current mainstream economics and its flaws, and the need to encourage wider discussion of economics (including Austrian economics), but there is much further development to be done on economic theory and rejection of (even aspiration to) the scientific method, significantly curtails Austrian economists credibility (it still has lots to add, but that's a pretty big barrier).

With all there is wrong about mainstream/neoclassical economics, using it as justification for rejecting the scientific method, is using bad science as an excuse for rejection science overall; like rejecting all of Physics because someone cooked up an illusory perpetual motion device and conned the world with it.

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

KyussBishop I think you are confusing the scientific method with positivism; the two are not one and the same.

Also, you keep stating that libertarianism rejects the scientific method completely, explicitly, etc -- you have not provided a single shred of evidence to support this assertion. Which isn't very scientific when you think about it.

I'm using the scientific method as a standard to judge the social sciences and what they should aspire to; Libertarianism stands apart in its deliberate rejection of the scientific method, which curtails its credibility, whereas other social sciences that still aspire to the scientific method are more credible.

Praxeology, the underpinnings of much of Libertarianism, rejects the scientific method.

southsiderosie

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm using the scientific method as a standard to judge the social sciences and what they should aspire to; Libertarianism stands apart in its deliberate rejection of the scientific method, which curtails its credibility, whereas other social sciences that still aspire to the scientific method are more credible.

Two questions:

1. What fields of social science are you referring to?

2. Why do you think this makes them more credible?

First, the process of gathering 'objective' data is itself highly value-laden - the census is a case in point.

Second, many studies that attempt to make predictions about or model human behavior far too often rely on totally unrealistic assumptions. Hence the bigger problem in much of social science is not the actual approach to understanding society, but rather the underlying assumptions involved in a given approach.

Finally, I am really struggling to see how you would falsify theories of human behavior in the social sciences. Take collective action, for example: a key question in sociology and political science is, why do people engage in contentious politics? Marxists, utilitarians, rational choice theorists, classical liberals, institutionalists, and primordialists would all answer that question quite differently

KyussBishop

southsiderosie wrote: »

Two questions:

1. What fields of social science are you referring to?

2. Why do you think this makes them more credible?

First, the process of gathering 'objective' data is itself highly value-laden - the census is a case in point.

1: In the context of this discussion, primarily economics
2: I think social sciences that take into account available empirical data, and also make predictions that can be falsified or have doubt cast on them by emprical data, are inherently more credible as they aspire to use these methods to underpin their theory (EDIT: evidence which gives them more solid grounding/credibility based on real world data).
The difference with Austrian economics from most social science (economics mainly), is how it explicitly rejects the very idea of this.

I don't disagree that there are many problems managing the accuracy of empirical data used, and how it can be applied, but the rejection of the use of it in shaping theory and even of providing a means to falsify it, inherently makes the theory lose credibility (from my point of view).

southsiderosie wrote:

Second, many studies that attempt to make predictions about or model human behavior far too often rely on totally unrealistic assumptions. Hence the bigger problem in much of social science is not the actual approach to understanding society, but rather the underlying assumptions involved in a given approach.

This is pretty much the exact problem I see with praxeology, which underpins Libertarianism; this kind of stuff needs to be tested with real world data (to at least look for problems), because the bigger and more complicated your framework of assumptions/ideas (that don't have solid empirical backing), the more likely it is there is a serious flaw in there somewhere.

southsiderosie wrote:

Finally, I am really struggling to see how you would falsify theories of human behavior in the social sciences. Take collective action, for example: a key question in sociology and political science is, why do people engage in contentious politics? Marxists, utilitarians, rational choice theorists, classical liberals, institutionalists, and primordialists would all answer that question quite differently

Well, it's not hard falsifiability, where the whole theory would come down; I think theories should make specific predictions which are falsifiable, such as many Austrian economists prediction of impending hyperinflation (which has not come about), as well as attempts to refine theory in order to try and model potential economic outcomes, in a way that can be falsified as well.

If theories try to make specific predictions like this, they are (in my view) aspiring to the scientific method, and providing useful debate; since the scientific method and use of empirical data is rejected by praxeology, it severely limits the credibility of the theory in that regard (in my view).


I'm not sure I answered that very accurately Maybe there is the impression or some confusion that I'm trying to falsify base Libertarian beliefs:
I'm not trying to do that, because if someone holds different societal values then that's that, I'm more criticizing the rejection of scientific methods in underpinning the credibility of the overall theory, regardless of whatever social values are used to justify it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

KyussBishop wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The problem with this view is that the theories that really reshape how people in a given field within social science think about things are the ones that aren't necessarily grounded in carefully gathered empirical data. There are plenty of theorists who present an alternative theory of how the world works that are logical, and dare I say, elegant enough to completely re-orient how we think about a given problem, and they are happy to let other people test that theory in multiple settings. Even if they don't necessarily hold over time, 'failed' theories often have the benefit of opening up unexplored areas of research that can yield real insights that refine existing approaches to understanding a problem.

To bring things back to the main idea of the thread, the fetishization of modeling human behavior in the social sciences is in and of itself an ideology that has led to gross distortions in the interpretation of social behavior and phenomena in political science and economics, and has reduced many subfields to little more than attempts to count the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Amen.

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm using the scientific method as a standard to judge the social sciences and what they should aspire to; Libertarianism stands apart in its deliberate rejection of the scientific method, which curtails its credibility, whereas other social sciences that still aspire to the scientific method are more credible.

Again, you are asserting that libertarianism rejects the scientific method in its entirety. You have yet to explain how! You are mistaking praxeology's contesting positivism with a rejection of science entirely and ignoring any calls to expand on your position. I don't know the answer to the issue but it would be good to actually discuss it!

Eliot Rosewater

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's a silly cop-out which tries to make it a matter of 'rights and wrongs' i.e. opinions, when the claims made by the theory are a matter of fact whose credibility is subject to question by the scientific method.

Your claim was that political ideologies are ultimately subject to the scientific method. My counterclaim was that at best a subset of the beliefs of a political ideology are subject to the scientific method. Perhaps, if I'm wrong, you could tell me how the conservative and liberal views on marriage may be compared using the scientific method?

KyussBishop wrote: »

Heh, ironic much? In its rejection of empirical evidence, Libertarianism is precisely like the Popes refutation of Gallileo's ideas; it's like the Pope reasserting his own beliefs without any kind of need for scientific backing, because the beliefs are consistent with his ideological framework.

Frankly, this is just anti-intellectualism. You're saying "I'm supporting the scientific method on this thread, therefore any claims that my means of supporting it are unscientific are rubbish." That is plainly nonsense. One can support the scientific method using unscientific arguments.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Your entire argument here rests on the idea that you can only try to disprove a theory from the ground up on microeconomic effects, not by disproving its claims on macroeconomic effects, which is a completely silly proposition.

Yes - my claim is that it is probably impossible to judge the effects of one economic policy by looking at aggregate data for the whole economy of which the policy is merely a tiny component. Presenting an increasing graph of the USA's GDP for the 20th century does not provide evidence for or against the economic benefits of the minimum wage. The graph says that on an aggregate basis the economy performed positively, but it is impossible to solve the "inverse problem" and attribute that positive growth to single particular aspects. It is highly possible that the effect of the minimum wage was negative, but that the negative effects were cancelled out by other policies.

Really - isolating certain causal factors is such an essential component in the practice of hard science that I'm baffled at your dismissing such concerns as "silly".

KyussBishop

I'm not saying economics has to be a natural science, and I haven't challenged at all the uncertainty inherent in economics, and I'm not claiming an economic theory is invalid if it can't do a perfect "x-y-z" explanation of a theory, I am critical due to the deliberate inapplication (and stated rejection) of actual real world data to backing, shaping, verifying and falsifying theory.

Whatever economic framework you come up with, you need to test its assumptions, and praxeology rejects the idea of using empirical evidence to actually test the underlying assumptions of the theory; neoclassical economics fails here as well, by not properly incorporating conflicting real world data to reshape theory.
I am aware that uncertainty in data puts limits on falsifiability, and the inherent uncertainty of human behaviour in an economy also adds uncertainty, but nonetheless it is essential to base development of the theory and credibility of it, on how well it matches observation, which is best guided through empirical data (taking into account limitations in data, as it is useful regardless).

With Austrian economics, the more complicated it's underlying assumptions that it tries to put beyond the realm of (in)validation through observation and empirical data, the higher the chance of significant flaws within; hence why it loses credibility through rejection of empirical data.

Even concentrating solely in the social sciences, there is a huge distinction between the credibility of theories which use a scientific process to guide and found development, and those that specifically reject it; this process does not have to be a perfect one of developing universal quantitative laws, or describing a system with complete accuracy and perfection, it simply needs to strive towards greater credibility through aspiration to scientific standards.

southsiderosie wrote:

The problem with this view is that the theories that really reshape how people in a given field within social science think about things are the ones that aren't necessarily grounded in carefully gathered empirical data. There are plenty of theorists who present an alternative theory of how the world works that are logical, and dare I say, elegant enough to completely re-orient how we think about a given problem, and they are happy to let other people test that theory in multiple settings. Even if they don't necessarily hold over time, 'failed' theories often have the benefit of opening up unexplored areas of research that can yield real insights that refine existing approaches to understanding a problem.

To bring things back to the main idea of the thread, the fetishization of modeling human behavior in the social sciences is in and of itself an ideology that has led to gross distortions in the interpretation of social behavior and phenomena in political science and economics, and has reduced many subfields to little more than attempts to count the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Absolutely, theories which are not grounded in empirical data can still add to the discussion, and parts of Austrian economics such as its business cycle theory have been a useful precursor to subsequent more accurate theories, but it should not be a guide on how to implement economic policy when there are more well grounded alternatives.
It's perfectly possible for such theories to contribute useful ideas, but it should always be strived to form them into a more solid groundwork that can have its underlying assumptions backed (and challenged) by data.

It is the specific rejection of empirical data and falsifiability that is a problem here; I know there are problems with using both in economics, but they are still useful in guiding observational development of theory, and the very idea of that is rejected for the core of the underlying theory.
Basically, rejecting empiricism allows observational data to be ignored, when it should be used to highlight flaws, to try to explain new observations consistently and reshape a theory; if you selectively ignore data, you can make a theory say whatever you want, or deliberately warp its foundations and try to make them untouchable through obfuscation and supposed empirical immunity.

KyussBishop

valmont wrote:

Again, you are asserting that libertarianism rejects the scientific method in its entirety. You have yet to explain how! You are mistaking praxeology's contesting positivism with a rejection of science entirely and ignoring any calls to expand on your position. I don't know the answer to the issue but it would be good to actually discuss it!

It (Libertarianism that is based on Austrian economics/praxeology) rejects it at a very base level in the formation of its underlying theory, reducing the credibility of the rest of the theory; data and evidence are still used to support the theory, but only after taking the base assumptions as true without proper backing.

I'm not saying there should be a positivist perfect verification of every part of the theory, just a proper application of empirical data in backing and guiding a theory; with Austrian economics, they try to claim the praxeological base as untouchable by rejecting empiricism, which is a very convenient base for rejecting criticism of its underlying assumptions.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Your claim was that political ideologies are ultimately subject to the scientific method. My counterclaim was that at best a subset of the beliefs of a political ideology are subject to the scientific method. Perhaps, if I'm wrong, you could tell me how the conservative and liberal views on marriage may be compared using the scientific method?

I did not generalize application of the scientific method to politics as a whole (I did say though, that it should be used all throughout politics, where possible), neither did I say it should be applied to judge purely subjective beliefs.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Frankly, this is just anti-intellectualism. You're saying "I'm supporting the scientific method on this thread, therefore any claims that my means of supporting it are unscientific are rubbish." That is plainly nonsense. One can support the scientific method using unscientific arguments.

The fact that I'm promoting a rigorous aspiration to scientific principles, makes your anti-intellectual accusation absurd.

You're trying to paint my point of view in a highly black and white manner, when it is not so, and trying to justify the discarding of empirical methods by showing partial limitations of them.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Yes - my claim is that it is probably impossible to judge the effects of one economic policy by looking at aggregate data for the whole economy of which the policy is merely a tiny component. Presenting an increasing graph of the USA's GDP for the 20th century does not provide evidence for or against the economic benefits of the minimum wage. The graph says that on an aggregate basis the economy performed positively, but it is impossible to solve the "inverse problem" and attribute that positive growth to single particular aspects. It is highly possible that the effect of the minimum wage was negative, but that the negative effects were cancelled out by other policies.

Really - isolating certain causal factors is such an essential component in the practice of hard science that I'm baffled at your dismissing such concerns as "silly".

Your entire presentation of my point of view is a straw man, as you're saying I'm demanding a fully quantitative approach to economics, when I'm saying it should aspire to the much more general approach of the scientific method, and criticizing how Austrian economics stands apart by rejecting that at its core.

I even explicitly state that there are limitations to how much that can be followed, and that the condition is not rigorous following of the scientific method where not possible but aspiration to it, so you seem intent on continually beating a straw man here.

Soldie

KyussBishop, you have not addressed any the points made by other posters; you have just continued to repeat yourself. On the one hand you claim to acknowledge the shortcomings of applying the scientific method to the social sciences. On the other hand you claim that your own approach is more valid because it incorporates the scientific method. This is inherently self-contradictory.

We can paraphrase your long-winded posts as follows: "I accept that the scientific method is not entirely applicable to the social sciences, but Austrian economics is inherently flawed because it does not apply the scientific method". This is not a valid form of debate; it's just seeking the moral high ground. Unless you take the time to try to understand and address the points made by other posters, this discussion is going nowhere.

Eliot Rosewater

KyussBishop wrote: »

I did not generalize application of the scientific method to politics as a whole (I did say though, that it should be used all throughout politics, where possible), neither did I say it should be applied to judge purely subjective beliefs.

I'm afraid KyussBishop that that's precisely what you said (my bold):

KyussBishop wrote: »

Libertarianism is free to apply to whatever philosophical principles it wants (as it does), but the credibility of all theories are typically judged based upon the principles of the scientific method, and how well they adhere to them (or how well they aspire to them, when it's not possible to adhere).

As regards the scientific method being used in politics where possible - I doubt anyone would disagree with that. We disagree on the "where possible" part.

KyussBishop wrote: »

The fact that I'm promoting a rigorous aspiration to scientific principles, makes your anti-intellectual accusation absurd.

You're trying to paint my point of view in a highly black and white manner, when it is not so, and trying to justify the discarding of empirical methods by showing partial limitations of them.

For the anti-intellectualism, hardly. If someone came onto the thread saying that they believed in the scientific method because a three-headed god appeared to them in a dream and told them to use the scientific method exclusively, would I be incorrect to accuse them of being unacademic? You seem to think that because you are arguing for a particular application of the scientific method that you have a free pass to use all kinds of flawed arguments in your defense without those flaws being pointed out to you. For instance, labeling my argument against empiricism in economics as an excuse, and then dismissing it because it was now an excuse, was clearly a very unacademic and unscientific way to conduct the debate.

As regards my criticism being "partial" -- again, I'm simply baffled. The failure of economics to be able to isolate single causal relationships in data analysis is not a "partial" limitation: it cuts right to the heart of its ability to implement the scientific method properly. As I said, this is such a central part of the application of the scientific method in the hard sciences that I'm genuinely surprised at your attempts to brush it under the carpet.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Your entire presentation of my point of view is a straw man, as you're saying I'm demanding a fully quantitative approach to economics, when I'm saying it should aspire to the much more general approach of the scientific method, and criticizing how Austrian economics stands apart by rejecting that at its core.

I don't think I've engaged in such straw-manning. The criticism of empiricism I outlined does not merely kick in when economics is 95% empirical - it is a criticism that arguably affects our ability to make economics even 5% empirical.