Comment by tc | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tc | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You missed my point completely. Let's see:

you're wrong to suggest that objectivity of analysis isn't worth considering

I abhor anything but objective analysis, which to me means something very close to "honest analysis." My suggestion above basically boils down to the idea that independent thinkers should read primary documents (while understanding their context).

Go read Marx's manifesto. Read Mussolini's writings on why Marx was wrong and how fascism is a better system. Read Keynes. Read Friedman's deconstructions of Keynes. Read Mises' deconstructions of socialism (particularly the problem of economic calculation). Read Rothbard's deconstructions of monetarism. Et cetera. But skip the false textbook-style 'objectivity' that just randomly assembles the ideas of history into an incongruent mush.

But that doesn't mean all approaches to economics are equally objective

Correct; I would never suggest as much. Some are logically inconsistent, or consist of arguments mired deeply in logical fallacies. Some grossly conflate cause with effect and correlation with causation. Many focus only on the benefits of a policy to a concentrated group while ignoring the diffuse costs to the rest of society. And some advocate policies that never produce the outcome that is promised.

Reading primary documents may or may not be the best way to get an unbiased view, but regardless, it's not actually what you suggested in your first post. You said:

> "To maintain the ability to think for yourself, the best material to read are those works that are very clear and honest about their axioms."

It's unclear what this means w.r.t. choosing materials to learn economics from. Luckily, you clarified your position by recommending Rothbard's For a New Liberty as an economic primer.

As far as I can tell from taking a quick look at it, For a New Liberty spends at least its first fifty pages talking about the basic principle of libertarianism and how it should be applied by a good libertarian. It is undeniable that Rothbard is up front about his biases, and when I looked through FANL I sort of figured out what you meant by "very clear [] about their axioms".

It is equally undeniable, however -- and this was my point -- that his biases are adhered to out of a mysterious near-religious conviction, and not because he thinks that they will get him to the truth, and that as a result he is probably not an ideal person to learn economics from.

And it is also true that recommending an enormous tract whose first fifty pages (at least) consist of heavily biased pseudophilosophical tripe to somebody who wants to learn economics from an unbiased source is really really stupid, and makes me think that your basic agenda is to push Rothbard's ideas or something like them.

Sure, I have an agenda. What's the point of writing if not to change minds?

My emphasis was you should be conscious that everyone has an agenda, even those who claim to be 'standard' or 'objective,' particularly when it comes to the dismal science.

I told the commenter to read strong viewpoints and think for himself. Then I suggested my preferred quadrant of the noosphere as a place to start. Why? Because I consider it more generally insightful and intellectually honest than most of the drivel out there. But of course, your mileage may vary.

In retrospect, I should have just suggested PG's essay "How to Make Wealth" [1], as it contains the single most important insight commonly missed in economic discussions.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html

There is no such thing as objectivity.

For such a thing to exist an entity with no desires, interests or stakes would have to make this objective judgment.

All we can do is perhaps identify the different subjective components in a argument.

It is perhaps a semantic point, but I consider a && !a objectively false and a || !a objectively true -- but even there, you have to accept certain axioms of logic. And I consider initiating violence against a peaceful person objectively immoral -- but if you don't already accept that, I'm not sure how I could convince you.

Epistemology is interesting and complex.

I respectfully disagree. a && !a is not objectively false, and neither is a && !a objectively true. You are correct within a set of accepted axioms, defined by Mr. Boole. You might be incorrect within another set of axioms.

That's exactly what this thread is about : when you do real maths you always start from definitions and axioms. It's not objective or subjective, it's well defined.

I do prefer to read opinions of people who state their axioms first, rather than people who pretend to be objective.

Initiating violence against a peaceful person is immoral in lots of cultures (including mine). Your culture is your set of axioms here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com