The Failure of Empiricism

elaborates and expands on the "empiricism" argument in "Debunking Every Anti-Capitalist Argument Ever"

BTC address: bc1qsqz7ekk8ha6rkssd3a6jv9t93nm4d6heycjlt3

[karolgajko]

Economic Science and the Austrian Method: the Movie

[lint]

Wow. Fantastic video and a great in depth analysis on empiricism. I learned a lot!

[brianauthement]

This was such a great video, I've been looking for something like this for a while and it truly hit the spot.

[KnownNiche]

As a right wing empiricist, I'd like to refute one of the points in this video.

In empiricism, one can indeed try to explain away the failure of A to produce B, but there are two counters to this in general:

1. If he has no confirmation of A producing B at least *once*, he cannot make an empiricist argument, since he has never observed the causal relationship

2. If he explains it away once - it could be plausible. But if A fails to produce B, 20 consecutive times, and he keeps explaining it away - his hypothesis is generally rejected until an empirical observation to the countrary is made.

[ClassPunkOnRumbleAndSubstack]

I think I have similar thought that likelihood/probability deduction appears to be the foundation of logic and reason, but that it often fails due to our brain's limitations in sorting out the complexity or information overload of the universe.

I also think if you broke complex terms down more and used more metaphors, it would be more work, but help you reach more people. Just my two cents.

[Lionmonkeyreal]

Re: Axioms

Any statement can be taken as an axiom. You select axioms to create a framework of reasoning. However, it is very much possible to make a bad selection of such axioms that eventually are shown to contradict each other, leading to a flawed framework of reasoning. Also, even if the framework of reasoning is self-consistent, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is applicable to real world.

[Lionmonkeyreal]

Re: Any experiment is not controlled, therefore empiricism is worthless.

Scientific control is not about completely negating effect of unwanted variables but minimizing them. This can be sufficient.

[Antonio-ejwp]

Interesting vid, here are my objections:
1.Any claim needs to be demonstrated in order to proof that is true, that's empiricism, logic can't backed up any of his premises because doesn't use evidence but aprioristic methods, something can have a perfect consistent internal logic but be false
2.Although it can be argued that in a experiment a variable isn't controled still you need to prove in which way it interacts with the study object, in fact it isn't something bad to make various experiments of the same object controlling different variables as it give us a more accurate approach for understanding reality as replicability is a thing
3.Althoug aprioristic methods can lead to something true in order to prove it needs evidence that backed up the premise, therefore empiricism>logic

[evanjack]

You do agree, though, that, in the neo-Kantian sense, the “action axiom” is synthetic a priori, right?

[ianmoeller]

I’m commenting to have the algorithm help your vids.

[namastereciprocity]

non-emperiscists: woman is one that identifies as a woman.

[Lionmonkeyreal]

RE: Knowledge that humans behave purposefully is simply known.

That's highly debatable.

[namastereciprocity]

non-emperiscists: "oh no. Empiricism is potentially falsefiable and thus analytically consistent. i guess everytrhing is relative and theres no need to sustain my claim about morality, liberty and autonomy."

"here take my stuff."

[Lionmonkeyreal]

Re: In order for there to be such a convention, every speaker must know what "convention" actually is

Not really. You can use terms and concepts inductively, reasoning where they are appropriate based on experience, without needing to be able to define them. Anyway, you can turn this argument against the "analytical" reasoning as well. Taking your beloved "humans behave purposefully". What are humans? What is behave?, What is purposefully. if you try to define them, I can still ask the same about the terms you used to do that.

[LebaneseBaron]

About the "Man cannot change" x "Man's behavior can change", can I ask if dopamine (hormone of motivation and reward) can put humans somewhere in between this dichotomy? Since we have a wide range of possible behaviors due to our neural complexity, but not unlimited either, so the number of variables (though large it may be) can still be controlled for.

[Lionmonkeyreal]

Re: All derivations made from this axiom must be certainly true.

Not certainly at all. Whether the axiom is useful for representing actual state of things aside, there is still space for fallacious logic creating false derivations.

[whiterussian]

No, our knowledge of man's nature is derived from our experience, it is not apriori. All animals make choices, we can't derive economic system from that

"Empiricism is self defeating" is a bad argument, just like saying "verification principles does not pass the verefication principle". Principles are not obliged to pass their own criterias

The constancy principle, as well, just a principle. It does not prove logical connection between cause and effect. It is just a tool we use for practical purpuses. All inductive conclusions still remain probable/improbable and all deductive conclusions sound/unsound


Hoppe's argument about language is really dumb. When we say languige is a set of conventional symbols, by "convention" we mean established by practice, not an agreement. Language is a natural phenomenon that can not be learned without experiencing it from other members of our species. There is just no way it can exist within us prior to us expereincing it. Hoppe seems to be very bad at phylosophy. He is just ayn rend level incompitent, never use his arguments, they are just embarrasing

And the next argument is even worse. Of course we know meaning of the word before we define the word. We use a symbol to refer to the referent which exists beyound our language. Meanings exist prior to the language, they are not a part of it. How on earth does this prove a priori nature of the language?

Jesus, it keeps getting worse. Now we have straight up non sequitur. From "inductive conclusions are not logically certain" does not follow "man can't learn".

"Causal chains exist because we belive they exis for practical reasons". Really?

Ok, now I can say that Hoppe, obviously never read Hume or Kant (who tried to refute hume with far better arguments) or Frege or Ayer or Carnap. This is absolutely incompitent man who does not understand what he is talking about.

[lowereastsideastrologist]

The failure of empiricism is also known as the rationalist delusion.

[Ferdinand]

Where is that video? "the libertarian ethic"

[darthinvader]

Re: the point against human action being purposeful as unfalsifiable, thus disproving the whole chain

There's actual empirical evidence about supply and demand curves, as well as variety (or, at the very least, the results of it) and much more.
There's also the issue about action not necessarily pertaining directly to economics and action pertaining to economics being rational.
Want to remove perfect rationality? Then you get Limited rationality. Want to add actors? Then you get Limited rationality with intervention by external actors (what we actually do/have irl).
There's still economic action that can empirically still bring up the whole theoretical chain and has been studied with simulations.

Some also do indeed have adjusted many (if not all) of these initial conditions and there is results favoring capitalism.

On the Analytic and Synthetic for empiricists: you can "mix and match", by combining analytical reasoning to the synthetic statements; as a matter of fact, the empiricist must do so.

On "begging the question" and axioms based on primitive concepts: they're akin to two sides of the same unsupported coin. There's nothing that can fill that void. You take it to the chin and move on.