全 19 件のコメント

[–]RITheory 18ポイント19ポイント  (9子コメント)

Oh god, completely ignoring that there is LITERALLY no definition for the supposed 'axioms' (so there can be no conclusions made), the whole thing is a mess. It is literally nothing more than putting symbols for words into sentences. There is LITERALLY no logic going on here.

That is not how any of this works.

[–]MistakeNotDotDotDotP = Post, R = Reddit, B = Bad, M = Math: ∀P∈R, P ⇒ BM 24ポイント25ポイント  (8子コメント)

∀E∈V, E ⇒ MB ≡ For any arbitrary Exchange that is Voluntary, that Exchange occurring implies that it is Mutually Beneficial

So E is both a proposition and a member of a set? 'Mutually' is a set now? What the fuck? It's like cargo-cult syntax.

[–]Anwyl 15ポイント16ポイント  (2子コメント)

cargo-cult syntax.

I love this term

[–]Neurokeen 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Seriously, that needs to be someone's flair. It's just too good.

[–]AcellOfllSpadesremember, inversions = identities 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Done.

[–]NonlinearHamiltonianMath contains everything, and therefore contains itself. 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

We put words next to each other so we must be able to also put symbols next to each other.

[–]RITheory 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's what I mean! I mean, if that's the case, we're talking about sets of propositions and we're far beyond economics. It's sets of propositions containing themselves; that's some Godel - Whitehead shit.

[–]MistakeNotDotDotDotP = Post, R = Reddit, B = Bad, M = Math: ∀P∈R, P ⇒ BM 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm just sad that the OP's marked as [deleted] so we'll never get them in here defending it to us. :(

[–]AcellOfllSpadesremember, inversions = identities 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thanks for the new flair.

[–]MistakeNotDotDotDotP = Post, R = Reddit, B = Bad, M = Math: ∀P∈R, P ⇒ BM 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Happy to help.

[–]VodkaHaze 18ポイント19ポイント  (4子コメント)

Hey guys! Austrian economists are considered heterodox economists and are generally the laughing stock over at /r/badeconomics.

Their main method of analysis is "praxeology" where you form theorems a priori from axioms (the first of which being "human action is purposeful", which means both everything and nothing at once). They also generally don't use math much (or at all) compared to mainstream economists.

Prax theorems can not be proven wrong a posteriori by empirical proofs (eg. they completely reject statistical testing of models like mainstream economics does). At /r/badeconomics, when someone pulls a theorem out of his ass without foundations or proofs, we often say "nice prax" or something of the like; we don't hold that methodology in high esteem.

Prax means that if you thought about something hard enough you can't be wrong even if everything in the world says it is with certainty. You could say it rejects the scientific method.

Austrian economics is usually used as justification for libertarian political views. I still don't get why that is since you can argue a small government position with mainstream models, but then again I guess that's too math heavy for the average anarchocapitalist

[–]MistakeNotDotDotDotP = Post, R = Reddit, B = Bad, M = Math: ∀P∈R, P ⇒ BM 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

Oh, that's what 'prax it out' means.

[–]VodkaHaze 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah. You too can prax right now! Example:

  1. Human action is purposeful

  2. Theft is depriving someone's property without their consent

  3. The government taxes our property without our consent

  4. Therefore taxes = theft

  5. We should abolish the thieving government

[–]luiscubal 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Prax theorems can not be proven wrong a posteriori by empirical proofs (eg. they completely reject statistical testing of models like mainstream economics does).

Well that's just cute.

[–]Neurokeen 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can you imagine if someone extended that reason to any multi-component system that mostly used observational methods? "Biological systems have bunches of things involved, so we're just going to deduce-out the entire field of epidemiology and reject empirical evidence."

[–]exegene 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

I am not claiming to prove an axiom, I have explicitly said that multiple times. An axiom is something which is asserted, being true is part of its definition because the set of contradictions is empty, making it vacuously true.

This exchange is giving me the best laugh I've had in weeks.

[–]thabonchGodel was a volcano 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

V = Voluntary

E = Exchange

B = Beneficial

M = Mutually

The arguments I am making are:

∀E∈V, E ⇒ MB

Quick! Someone get the Fields Medal!

[–]ttumblrbots 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

  • Austrian economist uses logic - SnapShots: 1, 2, 3 [huh?]
  • (full thread) - SnapShots: 1, 2, 3 [huh?]

doooooogs: 1, 2 (seizure warning); 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; if you know of more archiving sites please PM me

[–]GodelsVortex 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Despite what Godel said, I'm consistent AND complete.

Here's an archived version of the linked post.