You're starting to see the holes in the STV. As you see, this theory focus on the individual decisions at the moment of purchase, leaving out the whole context of social institutions and practices where the individuals involved in a particular exchange have no influence. If there weren't preset values in the form of price, you wouldn't find price tags in the merchandise when you enter the store. In order for "subjective value" to be created at that moment, if it really were subjective, you would have to wait until the buyer makes the choice to find out what that value was. And even so, leaving the store, you wouldn't know what value that commodity will have in the next hour for another customer. Concepts like market, supply and demand, cost of labor, cost of production, etc., evidently clash with the concept of "subjective value".Steve3007 wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2018, 7:41 amMaybe the 'S' in STV is not a good word? I don't know. I don't actually care much. In trying to work out whether I agree with it, I care more what this STV thing says in (slightly) more than one word.Count Lucanor wrote:Remember, it's supposed to be subjective. If things arrived at the market with a preset value, so that you can "shop around", then it is no longer subjective, but objective, right? How does the market know what is the value people assign to things and why is that value relatively stable if it's created at the moment of purchase?
Here's the start of the Wikipedia entry on STV:
I essentially agree with it (because it seems to me to be a tautology) but I think it's badly worded, which might make it misleading. I think it should say "the value of a good is not necessarily determined by any particular inherent property of the good, nor necessarily by the amount of labor necessary to produce the good."
In other words, we all make our own individual (subjective?) decision as to the value we place on a good but that doesn't mean those decisions are usually purely personal tastes with no reference to the outside world. Obviously the value that my company places on the goods that we sell isn't purely a matter of our personal taste. It explicitly takes into account such things as the cost of the labour that went into creating them. So in that case, labour is one factor leading to the valuation. If we didn't do that and we consistently (as opposed to as a "loss leader") tried to undercut our competitors by selling at below the cost of production we'd go bust. But it ain't necessarily so.
I could expend weeks of work on a painting and nobody would value it at all. A friend of mine did some work for the famous artist Damien Hirst (installing a large aquarium). During a break, Damien gave him a quick pencil sketch he'd done on a sheet of A4 paper. It was valued at £5000 (about US$7000). True story. Or so my friend says. He showed me the sketch. Nothing special, as far as I could see. Go figure.
Things don't arrive at market with a preset value. People bid for them. Their opening bid is not necessarily the actual value they place on the good/labour. Whether they're buying/selling labour or goods, it's what they think they might be able to get away with. In an ideal efficiently functioning market the final "strike price" converges on an objectively (or inter-subjectively?) existing "fair price" which is determined by the collective actions of all the players in the market. The more the player knows about the details of the particular market the closer his/her opening bid will be to the "fair price" for that market, because nobody wants to waste time making silly offers that will certainly be refused. That's what "shopping around" means.
So if we want an argument over sementics, perhaps we could play with the term "intersubjective"? Would that work better?
Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
You're right. And one wonders...if the value relations in each exchange were so evident to the participants, as the subjectivists propose, why would we need economists.Steve3007 wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2018, 9:59 pmI meant if economics was a science in the sense that it attempts to create models which purport to describe empirical observations and use patterns in those observations to predict future observations. If it was that then the various propositions of people who say they're talking about economics would be testable. But, if I remember rightly, our Frost seemed to say that it isn't such a thing. If it isn't such a thing then I struggle to understand how any of those propositions mean anything, I don't know much about sociology, but I assume that even that subject contains some kinds of testable propositions and theories, albeit inexact ones.Count Lucanor wrote:But it isn't. Not even biology. More like sociology.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
As with weather forecasting and medicine, economies are extremely complex systems with what appear to be significant amounts of chaos creating unpredictability. However, at least some of that chaos may be unpacked much more quickly with AI than without.
- Frost
- Posts: 511
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
About finishing it in 4 hours instead of 8? The monetary profit is identical, but the psychic profit may be different. Now answer my questionsCount Lucanor wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2018, 9:47 pmPlease answer my question.Frost wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2018, 11:37 am
So how did the kid determine $20 was worth mowing the lawn? How did the adult determine to pay the kid $20 vs. mowing it himself? Did they first compare it to the value of coffee beans? Or did they perform a survey of other kids that mow lawns? Why is it assumed that $20 is a "fair value"? Who determines this? I'm not following how each person actually decided to make the transaction.
- Frost
- Posts: 511
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
Not at all like sociology.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2018, 9:44 pmBut it isn't. Not even biology. More like sociology.
- Frost
- Posts: 511
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
No, you're misrepresenting the subjective theory by conflating price with value. Prices are not a measure of value.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2018, 11:04 pm If there weren't preset values in the form of price, you wouldn't find price tags in the merchandise when you enter the store. In order for "subjective value" to be created at that moment, if it really were subjective, you would have to wait until the buyer makes the choice to find out what that value was. And even so, leaving the store, you wouldn't know what value that commodity will have in the next hour for another customer. Concepts like market, supply and demand, cost of labor, cost of production, etc., evidently clash with the concept of "subjective value".
- Frost
- Posts: 511
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
This is at the heart of the epistemological foundations of economics. Economics is an evoked logical system based on the structure of human action. We cannot have a priori knowledge about the physical world, but we can have a priori knowledge in the realm of human action due to our internal access to the phenomena, and it has consequences in the physical world because of action. Praxeology begins with the axiom that human action is purposeful, and from there is builds on the structure of savings, investment, etc.Steve3007 wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2018, 9:59 pm I meant if economics was a science in the sense that it attempts to create models which purport to describe empirical observations and use patterns in those observations to predict future observations. If it was that then the various propositions of people who say they're talking about economics would be testable. But, if I remember rightly, our Frost seemed to say that it isn't such a thing. If it isn't such a thing then I struggle to understand how any of those propositions mean anything, I don't know much about sociology, but I assume that even that subject contains some kinds of testable propositions and theories, albeit inexact ones.
Rather than providing a boring read, here are some simple YouTube videos with a really cute girl describing praxeology:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoNU_-_ ... 593A261433
Hope you like
- Frost
- Posts: 511
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
AI cannot solve the problems. Economics does not deal with quantifiable variables. Economics is qualitative in its laws, not quantitative.Greta wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2018, 11:52 pm There was much learning from the hard lessons of the Great Depression. The west has (so far) not allowed their economies to since run away to the same extent by implementing much more rigorous (and experienced) steering controls. Still, like most professionals, current economists will surely pass the baton to AI.
As with weather forecasting and medicine, economies are extremely complex systems with what appear to be significant amounts of chaos creating unpredictability. However, at least some of that chaos may be unpacked much more quickly with AI than without.
And no, you don't seem to have a grasp on the history of the Depression. The economy didn't "run away," but rather there was a boom/bust cycle that resulted from the Federal Reserve attempting to manipulate the economy and business credit expansion that really distorts the capital goods industries. The boom/bust cycle is quite literally caused by government intervention. There should be a strict separation of government and economy and strict enforcement of a 100% gold standard and 100% reserve banking with strict enforcement of private property rights. That's the way to "regulate" the market.
- Frost
- Posts: 511
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
Your question is ambiguous. In a way, you're right. We don't need the vast majority of economists we have today and most of them just cause trouble. On the other hand, economists are needed to go through the complex chains of praxeological reasoning needed for analysis. If we went to a 100% gold standard and 100% reserve banking and a strict separation of government and economy, then there would be even far less need for economists.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2018, 11:09 pm
You're right. And one wonders...if the value relations in each exchange were so evident to the participants, as the subjectivists propose, why would we need economists.
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
Remember, 'truth' in logic means something specific. It does not mean empirically true. And it applies to the terms, the bits usually represented by letters. They can be represented by letters because they are not statements of empirical fact; if I wrote 'Mary is a woman' that would be true or false depending on the biology of Mary, social ideas about sexuality, whatever. Whereas we can simply 'assume' 'M' is true - or false - (as understood in logic) because it just stands for 'any proposition that is either true or false.'Frost wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2018, 3:22 pm
You said that "Logical truths are subject to change, in fact they are arbitrary, because 'truth' in logic is simply a value."
If the logical truths of mathematics were just arbitrary and subject to change, there was no way they could make the calculations necessary to go to the moon. If math is arbitrary and subject to change, why is it that the solution to d = (1/2)gt^2 is always the same? I am really starting to wonder why I am arguing about such utter nonsense.
Nor is 'truth' in logic an affirmation that 'my logic is correct'. If we have correctly applied the rules of logic we instead say something is 'valid'. It is valid if we have correctly understood the logical connectives, like 'and', 'not' etc. It is not valid because our conclusion correctly represents some empirical fact.
Suppose I just write '10'. Then I write '-10'. Which is correct? It is a silly question because the 10 does not represent anything, so I am free to write either. I can then do a sum involving adding 5 to either of those numbers. My sum will be correct if I correctly understand the meaning of 'adding'. And if I do, then both answers will be equally correct. One of the answers will be 'positive' and one will be 'negative' but by 'negative' we do not mean 'false' in the sense of 'incorrect' or 'not a fact'. It is the same in logic. 'True' and 'false' are like positive and negative numbers in an entirely abstract calculation.
What is independent? As a result of what? I cannot make sense of that sentence.Me: Are you talking about 'What the Tortoise said to Achilles'? If so, you have really failed to grasp what that is about.
You then contradict yourself; if 'the validity of inferences is determined by their semantic content' (I'm not sure you understand 'semantic', then they wouldn't be 'independently valid'', would they? Their validity would be determined by the semantic content. And your favourite phrase 'epistemic objectivity' remains as impenetrable as ever.
Independent of the rules of inference which are generated as a result.
Again, that is simply unintelligible. Look at the Wicki article on 'What the Tortoise said to Achilles', the section titled 'Explanation'. The regression arises because the tortoise does not accept logic as a formal system; as something that is ultimately tautological. That the inference is 'valid' (note the word) simply because it conforms to the rules about what is valid.The inference is not valid because of the rules, the rules describe the valid inference. This escapes the infinite regression of the Lewis Carroll paradox.
As the Wicki article says: Within the system of propositional logic, no proposition or variable carries any semantic content. The moment any proposition or variable takes on semantic content, the problem arises again because semantic content runs outside the system. Thus, if the solution is to be said to work, then it is to be said to work solely within the given formal system, and not otherwise.
That is what I am addressing above, if you make the variables in logic mean something, i.e represent something outside the purely formal system of logic ('Mary is a woman'), then you no longer have a closed system, it is no longer tautological.
Regarding this, the reason I suggest you might have a problem with 'semantic' is that it is concerned with 'meaning' in ordinary language, meaning not only conveyed in the individual words themselves but in the structure of language. But that is not the case in logic. As I explain above, 'X' in a piece of logic does not mean anything. Unlike natural language, logic is simple and binary, T or F.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
All kinds of things are subject to logical analysis. A logical analysis of rights does not give us the large picture of what rights are. To do this requires historical fieldwork. Framing the question of political life in terms of rights, with obligations being logically necessary to protect rights, is an impoverished view of political life.Rights are indeed subject to logical analysis.
Once again, you have lost hold of the threads of the argument. You say:You stated that you cannot establish causation period and now you are trying to change the subject.
In such complex phenomena you cannot establish causation without praxeological analysis.
My response was that it cannot be established even with praxeological analysis (i.e. period). Where we differ is that you believe that we can establish causation a priori with praxeological analysis and I do not.
I don't have to understand or predict "unintended and unforeseen consequences" in order to establish this causation.
We are talking about causation in a complex system such as an economy, not one isolated effect of one action. In the real world causal chains are not isolated events.
This is getting tedious. I have explained in what sense mathematics and logic are provisional and changing. You have demonstrated your inability to understand what I said when you point out that 5x5=25 as if that were a counter-example. Bacon said that mathematics is the universal language of nature. It is a language we are still learning to speak, but it is not like learning an existing language. It is being shaped and formed everyday, that is, it is provisional and changing.You were trying to change the subject to ontology of mathematics to weasel your way out of your obviously false claim that mathematics and logic are "provisional" and "always changing."
When you now ask:
you are asking a question about the ontology of mathematics. It is not changing the subject, you are just slow getting up to speed on what the subject entails.… why is it that the solution to d = (1/2)gt^2 is always the same?
That somethings remain constant is not a refutation of change.That d = (1/2) gt^2 is not going to be found to be wrong.
At each step I have tried to point you back from your theoretical hovel to the real world . A central question all along has been how applicable the theories you are expounding are. Logical truths are formal truths. As such they do not tell us anything about the world. Your faith in an a priori understanding of human action is nothing more than faith unless you can demonstrate that your alleged a priori knowledge is predictive of human action and therefore predictive of actual economic systems.You're changing the subject. I said "Logical truths are not subject to change" and you're trying to change the subject by claiming that the application of those logical truths to the world is provisional.
In the example given you were not attacked, but you feared you would be and acted. Such fear is subjective.No, these are not epistemically subjective at all. If a person attacks you, there is nothing epistemically subjective about assault and battery.
I said nothing about someone trespassing on my property.If someone trespasses on your property …
It happens all the time. Most cases involving shootings by police officers hinge on just this. As with stand your ground it is a matter of a perceived threat.Under the law, you cannot justifiably shoot someone because you think they might do something to you, which would be epistemically subjective.
You have failed to make the case that we cannot have a right against being offended because it is “epistemologically subjective”. The problem is not because of its subjective nature but rather because it is too broad, vague, and general.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
Ok of interest. And I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself. I ask this question all the time, never got an answer yet.
But let us assume praxeological economic theory was the only economic theory, so what? I mean what kinds of things would change? You say government intervention is bad, is that the result of praxeological economic theory? Like Steve I've googled the term but can find nothing other than humans act therefore praxeology is self evidently true. I mean it's not enough for me to go on. I can make no decisions on what to change or what not to change.
If you are able please give one example of praxeological economic theory applied to the real world which is unique to praxeology. I'd ask for evidence to go along with that but I understand evidence is against the spirit of praxeology. Like you say I am happy to hear the argument first.
- Frost
- Posts: 511
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
Yet logical truths do not change like you claim.Londoner wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2018, 6:43 am Remember, 'truth' in logic means something specific. It does not mean empirically true. And it applies to the terms, the bits usually represented by letters. They can be represented by letters because they are not statements of empirical fact; if I wrote 'Mary is a woman' that would be true or false depending on the biology of Mary, social ideas about sexuality, whatever. Whereas we can simply 'assume' 'M' is true - or false - (as understood in logic) because it just stands for 'any proposition that is either true or false.'
Nor is 'truth' in logic an affirmation that 'my logic is correct'. If we have correctly applied the rules of logic we instead say something is 'valid'. It is valid if we have correctly understood the logical connectives, like 'and', 'not' etc. It is not valid because our conclusion correctly represents some empirical fact.
Suppose I just write '10'. Then I write '-10'. Which is correct? It is a silly question because the 10 does not represent anything, so I am free to write either. I can then do a sum involving adding 5 to either of those numbers. My sum will be correct if I correctly understand the meaning of 'adding'. And if I do, then both answers will be equally correct. One of the answers will be 'positive' and one will be 'negative' but by 'negative' we do not mean 'false' in the sense of 'incorrect' or 'not a fact'. It is the same in logic. 'True' and 'false' are like positive and negative numbers in an entirely abstract calculation.
The rules of logic are not rules of logic because "it conforms to the rules of what is valid." That is the paradox. The rules of logic are derived from independently valid inferences, whose validity is a result of their semantic content. I am not saying that the syntactic form of modus ponens requires semantics, but that the validity of it is not grounded in logic but rather in semantically valid inferences.Londoner wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2018, 6:43 amAgain, that is simply unintelligible. Look at the Wicki article on 'What the Tortoise said to Achilles', the section titled 'Explanation'. The regression arises because the tortoise does not accept logic as a formal system; as something that is ultimately tautological. That the inference is 'valid' (note the word) simply because it conforms to the rules about what is valid.The inference is not valid because of the rules, the rules describe the valid inference. This escapes the infinite regression of the Lewis Carroll paradox.
As the Wicki article says: Within the system of propositional logic, no proposition or variable carries any semantic content. The moment any proposition or variable takes on semantic content, the problem arises again because semantic content runs outside the system. Thus, if the solution is to be said to work, then it is to be said to work solely within the given formal system, and not otherwise.
That is what I am addressing above, if you make the variables in logic mean something, i.e represent something outside the purely formal system of logic ('Mary is a woman'), then you no longer have a closed system, it is no longer tautological.
Regarding this, the reason I suggest you might have a problem with 'semantic' is that it is concerned with 'meaning' in ordinary language, meaning not only conveyed in the individual words themselves but in the structure of language. But that is not the case in logic. As I explain above, 'X' in a piece of logic does not mean anything. Unlike natural language, logic is simple and binary, T or F.
- Frost
- Posts: 511
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
A tremendous amount would change. We would see the futility of so much of what government attempts to do, or rather not merely futility, but harm that occurs.Eduk wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2018, 9:43 am Well if I was going to be praxeological Frost then I would say it was self evident that '12 rules for life's is the title of a self help book. Then I wouldn't need to bother to prove that.
Ok of interest. And I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself. I ask this question all the time, never got an answer yet.
But let us assume praxeological economic theory was the only economic theory, so what? I mean what kinds of things would change? You say government intervention is bad, is that the result of praxeological economic theory? Like Steve I've googled the term but can find nothing other than humans act therefore praxeology is self evidently true. I mean it's not enough for me to go on. I can make no decisions on what to change or what not to change.
If you are able please give one example of praxeological economic theory applied to the real world which is unique to praxeology. I'd ask for evidence to go along with that but I understand evidence is against the spirit of praxeology. Like you say I am happy to hear the argument first.
Praxeological economics is an entire system of economics. I can actually provide a textbook that is freely available online and you can read to your heart's content:
https://mises.org/system/tdf/Man%2C%20E ... e=document
- SimpleGuy
- Posts: 338
- Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
Note that since the brexit this evaluation is sometimes not even under the control of the european union. Just think about the libor-rate. The LondonFrost wrote:The subjective theory of value is simply that each person makes their own valuation, based on ANY factors. They may value a transaction for selfish or altruistic reasons. They value cigarettes and alcohol or they may value broccoli. They can, quite literally, value anything in any way they choose. Whether or not they are rational is an entirely separate question.
Interbank offered rate, called libor,which is a reference for interest rates in international bank trade. So this is an exclusion of any participation of political influence, which shows the effectiveness of politics as well which has just nothing to say for really important decisions.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023