Re: POLITICS - 'foundation of economic science' [was - Gli...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/27/04 8:14:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Dpdg@... writes:

> farmers and agriculture existed and functioned quite nicely before

> 'science' in it's current western application, was invented....

So what? I'm not sure what you're saying unless you're hinting at a

thoroughly irrational post-modernist implication. Was the world not made of

atoms

before the 20th century?

>not all people are rational or make rational choices OR choices that would

meet

> your specific take on any given subject...

Of course they wouldn't make a rational decision based on *my* take of a

subject-- which I clearly, clearly wrote in the followup to the email to which

you're responding, days ago.

That people make rational decisions is so universally accepted and so

self-evident that the burden of proof is on you to show that irrationality is

dominant among humans. If someone wants to give up material pursuits and

decides to

sell everything they own, give it to the poor, and live in a monastery or a

cave, that is entirely rational-- they are rationally deciding an if-then

statement, calculating how to achieve their goals. Their goals, on the other

hand,

are a given, and do not require rational justification, nor are subject to

rationality.

>nor is everyone so quick to dismiss others because they offer different

ways of

> looking at things [or ignore them, as the case might be]...

I have no idea what you're talking about.

>

> BTW... you should really have put the FOUNDATION OF ECONOMIC SCIENCE in

> parenthesis as it's not a fact of life but rather a book title of one of your

> current heroes...

I still have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't put it in the

subject line at all.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

That's simply not true. Prevailing economic theory has been moving past

this simplistic idea for quite awhile now. Of course, if you stack the

deck by defining " rational " as " whatever I want for whatever reason " , then

sure, people are " rational " , but that's not how ordinary people or

scientists understand the word.

>That people make rational decisions is so universally accepted and so

>self-evident that the burden of proof is on you to show that irrationality is

>dominant among humans.

-

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Idol " <Idol@...>

> >That people make rational decisions is so universally accepted and so

> >self-evident that the burden of proof is on you to show that

irrationality is

> >dominant among humans.

>

> That's simply not true. Prevailing economic theory has been moving

past

> this simplistic idea for quite awhile now. Of course, if you stack

the

> deck by defining " rational " as " whatever I want for whatever reason " ,

then

> sure, people are " rational " , but that's not how ordinary people or

> scientists understand the word.

http://www.m-w.com

Rational:

1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or

agreeable to reason : REASONABLE

Reason:

2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially

in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE

All volitional action is motivated by the desire to improve one's

situation in some particular way. One may not always aim at ends which

others consider desirable, and one may not always choose the most

appropriate means of achieving those ends. Colloquially speaking, such

actions may be called " irrational, " but in fact the act of perceiving

one's current condition, projecting one's future condition from those

perceptions, and then grasping the connection between acting and

altering one's future condition to a more desirable one is, in the

precise technical sense of the word, a rational process, regardless of

the incompetence (and I will be the first to admit that said

incompetence is often truly spectacular) with which it is carried out.

Here's an entry from a glossary of psychological terms:

" The term rational refers to being of sound mind and having (or

exercising) the ability to reason. In addition, in psychology being

rational means using conscious thought processes to solve problems. "

http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.cfm?term=Rational

That said, I do realize that providing a dictionary to back up my claims

regarding the definition of a word is stacking the deck and that this is

probably the product of some right-wing conspiracy to besmirch the good

name of rationality. And yes, this was the best on-line psychological

dictionary I could find with any definition of the word " rational. " Who

are these scientists who do not accept this use of the word " rational? "

I assume that you mean psychologists--I don't see why I should consider

a chemist to be an authority on the subject.

On a related note, I don't have time right now--and may not for some

time--to respond to your last reply to me in the " socialism and

language " thread in full, but with respect to Ludwig von Mises's use of

the word " socialism " in his 1922 work of the same name, which you took

as support for your position, it is quite clear from the context and

from his following descriptions of different types of socialism that he

meant " organized community " in a broad sense which includes the state.

Here is the full text:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msS6.html#Part%20II,Ch.15

[Guest guest]

<< I'm not sure what you're saying... I have no idea what you're talking

about... I still have no idea what you're talking about>>

nothing new then... interesting how you're quite on your own there though...

Dedy

[Guest guest]

> That's simply not true. Prevailing economic theory has been moving

past

> this simplistic idea for quite awhile now. Of course, if you stack

the

> deck by defining " rational " as " whatever I want for whatever

reason " , then

> sure, people are " rational " , but that's not how ordinary people or

> scientists understand the word.

You aren't distinguishing between rational ACTION and rational

VALUES. The idea that someone's values or goals need rational

justification is absolutely absurd. That people act rationally to

achieve these goals is apparent.

Economics is the study of human *behavior*, not human thought. It is

not psychology. Thus, it takes values and goals and thoughts as

ultimate givens, and studies the behavior based on them.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> nothing new then... interesting how you're quite on your own there

though...

Dedy,

I'm pretty confident you are perfectly capable of making coherent

statements. I have a decent level of intelligence, so you shouldn't

have a problem communicating in a way in which I can understand. If

you don't want to do that, that's fine I guess, but please stop the

repetitive posts with vague insinuations rather than direct

communication.

Chris