Comments on: DeLong on Introspection

By: Rafe Champion

Rafe Champion — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:44:28 +0000

the correct link
http://www.the-rathouse.com/OpenSocietyOnLIne/Chapter-23-Sociology-of-Knowledge.html

By: Rafe Champion

Rafe Champion — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:31:32 +0000

Polanyi anticipated some of the conservative views of Kuhn, which is not a compliment. If tacit knowledge is false or misleading then it needs to become explicit so it can be subjected to criticism, like Mises and Popper on historicism and Hayek on constructivist rationalism. That should be a task of the sociology of knowledge but it has not been done very well on account of the ideological leanings of the people in the field.

It is interesting to see how Popper produced a linked critique of the impulse for central planning AND the sociology of knowledge (as it later appeared in the work of Kuhn and the strong program) in chapter 23 of The Open Society. http://www.the-rathouse.com/OpenSocietyOnLIne/Chapter-23-Sociology-of-Knowledge

By: BionicTulip

BionicTulip — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:57:43 +0000

This is one of several areas of overlap with Michael Polanyi’s arguments about scientific discovery and tacit knowing. Mises, Hayek and Polanyi compliment each other here: Mises and Hayek argue that the positivist view is a conceit, and Polanyi offers a deep explanation of how our humanity introduces unavoidable bias into the discovery process without negating the existence of universal truth.

None of them argue that empirical data are useless, but they do lead readers to the conclusion that misunderstanding of and over-reliance on an empirical approach to understanding leads to tyranny.

By: Rafe Champion

Rafe Champion — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:41:59 +0000

Peter Boettke has linked to this post from his site. http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2008/01/couldnt-say-it.html

Taking up the idea of the framework that is required to identify the key factors, the foundation is a sound set of economic principles/laws including the subjective theory of value, marginal utility, opportunity cost, comparative advantage etc, then the implications of these laws need to be unpacked in the specific situation. Dani Rodrik has sketched this process in the context of third world development. I think this is acceptable situational analysis and not a retreat to historicism as some critics have suggested. http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2743

On the topic of regression models, this is a nice one from some of the George Mason people. Rodrik is also good on the misuse of regression models for development studies but this one looks robust. http://catallaxyfiles.com:80/?p=2872

By: Jacob

Jacob — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:17:31 +0000

Mises was beyond a doubt a genius- but insane? He certaintly held many controversial historical views (at least according to history taught in American public schools) but thats no reason to call him insane.

By: Rafe Champion

Rafe Champion — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:06:28 +0000

A student in a course run by Mises complained that he did not have time to become conversant with mathematics, physics, biology, history and jurisprudence and some philosophy as well. To which Mises replied that nobody was forcing him to become an economist.

By: Rafe Champion

Rafe Champion — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:23:33 +0000

So it was insane to write a definitive economic and sociological critique of Socialism circa 1920?

And in German too, that is incredible, I mean, most of us don’t even read German! That is inspired by a joke about an Aboriginal stockman (an indigene) who was listening to a cricket match in England that was broadcast in the middle of the night our time. When Don Bradman reached 100 he said, “That Bradman! What a player, think of the runs he would make playing in the daytime!”

That would not go over well in some circles here today. It is Australia Day, celebrating the arrival of the First Fleet of white settlers in Sydney Cove. Someone put up a plane to write SORRY in the sky.

By: Brad DeLong

Brad DeLong — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:04:10 +0000

It is possible to get carried away…. But almost no American economists are in danger of such. Von Mises may have been mad–insane–but he was very smart…

Brad DeLong

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:59:20 +0000

This is certainly not dissimilar to the project I would lay out for economic sociology, agreeing strongly that there is a difference between knowing enough history not to do violence to one’s subjects’ worldviews, and having to ‘do history’ while doing economics (or sociology for that matter).

Tricksier, I think, is finding the sweet spot between getting enough history to make relevant one’s economics, without losing the primacy of economics. After all, I’m guessing you (and DeLong) are calling on more people to become historians, or sociologists, but better economists, yes?

By: Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:47:06 +0000

While there is much to be learned from German various hermeneuts, Giambattista Vico in the “The New Science” (1725) probably deserves priority of authorship, if anyone does.