Comments on: The Economics of Distributism II: Political Economy as a Science http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/05/the-economics-of-distributism-ii-political-economy-as-a-science/ Place. Limits. Liberty. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:09:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Blogging Through Medaille: “Political Economy as a Science” : Half Past Noon http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/05/the-economics-of-distributism-ii-political-economy-as-a-science/#comment-7310 Blogging Through Medaille: “Political Economy as a Science” : Half Past Noon Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:44:43 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=3298#comment-7310 [...] The Economics of Distributism II: Political Economy as a Science [...] [...] The Economics of Distributism II: Political Economy as a Science [...]

]]> By: Shawn http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/05/the-economics-of-distributism-ii-political-economy-as-a-science/#comment-3175 Shawn Fri, 22 May 2009 01:35:16 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=3298#comment-3175 Human autonomy is an illusion. It is because of the complexities of our constraints (i.e. histories/environment, mental capacities or psychological awareness) we seemingly 'think' we have freedom and choice in decision-making and action. In reality, the universe of constraints bounds our choice-set at any given point in time through infinity. True, there are many choices we can make and actions we can perform, still they are bounded and finite. If we could perfectly describe the complexities of world human behavior would be perfectly predictable. One might argue that human behavior is simultaneously deterministic (at the micro-level laws), and due to the variation in constraints confronting us, seemingly stochastic at other non-micro-levels; thus giving rise to emergent, and often seemingly, unpredictable behavior. Because we do not understand the world’s complexities we employ statistical techniques to discover empirical relationships. The error terms (the stochastic component of such models) is not describing randomness in the world. On the contrary, and this is an important distinction, it describes those laws that we just don’t understand and therefore cannot incorporate into our theories and models. And in all fairness, theories, formal and empirical models are not meant to capture a one-to-one map of the world. If this were the case they would be analytically un-interesting and/or intractable. Notice I say seemingly because we simple do not understand the complexities of our environment and interactions- as of yet. Maybe human behavior is not actually so different from the behavior in the physical world given this discussion. Besides, we are after all, part of the physical world. The fact remains that it is inconceivable that we as humans have an infinite number of choices in the universe of all possible choice-sets. Whether this is due to either physical or environment constraints, or both, is irrelevant. Put simply, the social world is just more complex than the physical world. Or at least, it would seem. Human autonomy is an illusion. It is because of the complexities of our constraints (i.e. histories/environment, mental capacities or psychological awareness) we seemingly ‘think’ we have freedom and choice in decision-making and action. In reality, the universe of constraints bounds our choice-set at any given point in time through infinity. True, there are many choices we can make and actions we can perform, still they are bounded and finite. If we could perfectly describe the complexities of world human behavior would be perfectly predictable. One might argue that human behavior is simultaneously deterministic (at the micro-level laws), and due to the variation in constraints confronting us, seemingly stochastic at other non-micro-levels; thus giving rise to emergent, and often seemingly, unpredictable behavior. Because we do not understand the world’s complexities we employ statistical techniques to discover empirical relationships. The error terms (the stochastic component of such models) is not describing randomness in the world. On the contrary, and this is an important distinction, it describes those laws that we just don’t understand and therefore cannot incorporate into our theories and models. And in all fairness, theories, formal and empirical models are not meant to capture a one-to-one map of the world. If this were the case they would be analytically un-interesting and/or intractable.

Notice I say seemingly because we simple do not understand the complexities of our environment and interactions- as of yet. Maybe human behavior is not actually so different from the behavior in the physical world given this discussion. Besides, we are after all, part of the physical world.

The fact remains that it is inconceivable that we as humans have an infinite number of choices in the universe of all possible choice-sets. Whether this is due to either physical or environment constraints, or both, is irrelevant. Put simply, the social world is just more complex than the physical world. Or at least, it would seem.

]]> By: John Médaille http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/05/the-economics-of-distributism-ii-political-economy-as-a-science/#comment-3145 John Médaille Thu, 21 May 2009 16:11:53 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=3298#comment-3145 Dirk, Economics is a science, but the building of actual economic systems is an art, just as physics is a science but engineering is an art. Empedocles, Thanks for pointing me to Millikan. And by the way, that is a very interesting blog you have. Dirk, Economics is a science, but the building of actual economic systems is an art, just as physics is a science but engineering is an art.

Empedocles, Thanks for pointing me to Millikan. And by the way, that is a very interesting blog you have.

]]> By: D.W. Sabin http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/05/the-economics-of-distributism-ii-political-economy-as-a-science/#comment-3050 D.W. Sabin Tue, 19 May 2009 18:35:44 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=3298#comment-3050 What we need, with our protagonista Homo sapiens sapiens is not a theory of relativity but a Theory of Quixotivity. Both physics and biology possess certain scientific analysis that through time, can evolve some predictive norms. With humans we get the kind of chaos best compared to the weather. We might think we know where the tornado is going to strike but we won't know how to fully explain it until after it rammed through the place and launched the Chevy through the upstairs corner bathroom before leaving the entire place in a heap and maybe baby in the crib untouched. This science is for the odds-maker. Then , just to add a little more twisted sickness, we get humans in political action , a place where gravity is accepted only as a rumor subject to legislation, filibuster and the application of pressure by Political Action Committee. Economics would seem to be a perfect venue for chaos theory with a dash of DaDa thrown in for artistic effect. In fact, is it more art and craft than science? What we need, with our protagonista Homo sapiens sapiens is not a theory of relativity but a Theory of Quixotivity. Both physics and biology possess certain scientific analysis that through time, can evolve some predictive norms. With humans we get the kind of chaos best compared to the weather. We might think we know where the tornado is going to strike but we won’t know how to fully explain it until after it rammed through the place and launched the Chevy through the upstairs corner bathroom before leaving the entire place in a heap and maybe baby in the crib untouched. This science is for the odds-maker.

Then , just to add a little more twisted sickness, we get humans in political action , a place where gravity is accepted only as a rumor subject to legislation, filibuster and the application of pressure by Political Action Committee.

Economics would seem to be a perfect venue for chaos theory with a dash of DaDa thrown in for artistic effect. In fact, is it more art and craft than science?

]]> By: Empedocles http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/05/the-economics-of-distributism-ii-political-economy-as-a-science/#comment-3028 Empedocles Tue, 19 May 2009 15:37:27 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=3298#comment-3028 Once again I recommend everyone read Millikan's "Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories," THE new locus classicus which has revived teleology in philosophy. Much of the discussion concerning the relation between psychology, economics, and physics is addressed there as well, but especially in her "White Queen Psychology and Other Essays for Alice" (see "Thoughts Without Laws" in that volume for example). Psychology (and economics) are species of biology, not physics. Once again I recommend everyone read Millikan’s “Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories,” THE new locus classicus which has revived teleology in philosophy. Much of the discussion concerning the relation between psychology, economics, and physics is addressed there as well, but especially in her “White Queen Psychology and Other Essays for Alice” (see “Thoughts Without Laws” in that volume for example). Psychology (and economics) are species of biology, not physics.

]]>