Synthetic a priori : Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Synthetic a priori » Synthetic a priori

Synthetic a priori
The validity of praxeology?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Synthetic a priori

nosos
skeptical

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 24, 2004
Location: Coventry, UK
Total Topics: 145
Total Posts: 2290

Posted 12/27/06 - 02:56 AM: Subject: Synthetic a priori	#1
wiki wrote: Mises attempted to find the conceptual root of economics. Like other Austrian and classical economists, he rejected the use of observation, saying that human actors are too complex to be reduced to their component parts and too self-conscious not to have their behaviour affected by the very act of observation. Observation of human action, or extrapolation from historical data, would thus always be contaminated by overlooked factors in the way that the natural sciences would not be (notwithstanding certain theorized quantum mechanics effects suggesting consciousness causes collapse). To counter the subjective nature of the results of historical and statistical analysis (see Methodenstreit), Mises proposes that we look at the logical structure of human action (he entitled his magnum opus Human Action) Praxeology claims that one can come to knowledge about the world through deductive reasoning by analysing the logical structure of human action. The questions are: a) Are there such things as synthetic a priori propositions? b) Does the praxeological method produce valid examples of such propositions. This follows from a discussion on these threads: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/econom... http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/privat... I don’t see how this method can be seen to succeed. The results of the method purport to say something about reality and yet they are unfalsifiable. If Praxeology produces a claim that isn’t falsifiable which contradicts a claim which is, are these contradictory? If not, does one type of proposition have logical priority over another? More so, I’m not sure what I think about synthetic a priori propositions in the Kantian sense. However such propositions are, as I understand them, about (phenomenal) reality. Praxeology produces claims about the world. Is there a distinction to be made? Any thoughts?
"The men of the future will yet fight their way to many a liberty that we do not even miss? - Max Stirner "The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - JS Mill "I'd rather be a crying little pussy than a faggy Goth kid." - Butters

Tsunami
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2006
Location: Belgium, Ghent
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 365

Posted 12/27/06 - 03:02 AM:	#2
nosos wrote: Praxeology produces claims about the world. Synthetic a priori is always about reality as-we-know-it, and never about the world. The concept makes absolutely no sense when grounded on a realist framework.
"it's when a philosopher has no more problems that the next philosopher is about to arrive." Gilles Deleuze "information is endlessly available to us. Where shall wisdom be found?" Harold Bloom "The feeling of believing is a more or less sure indication of there being established in our nature some habit which will determine our actions. Doubt never has such an effect." -- Charles Sanders Peirce

nosos
skeptical

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 24, 2004
Location: Coventry, UK
Total Topics: 145
Total Posts: 2290

Posted 12/27/06 - 03:17 AM:	#3
Tsunami wrote: Synthetic a priori is always about reality as-we-know-it, and never about the world. The concept makes absolutely no sense when grounded on a realist framework. My thoughts exactly. I’ve not read much on the subject but considering that it offers itself up as a school of economics, I can’t see how it can fail to position itself in a broadly realist framework. Hence why I think it makes no sense.
"The men of the future will yet fight their way to many a liberty that we do not even miss? - Max Stirner "The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - JS Mill "I'd rather be a crying little pussy than a faggy Goth kid." - Butters

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror
Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 5098

Posted 12/27/06 - 06:00 AM:	#4
Why would it be realist? It seems to me idealist because it posits a unity of human action with some reason that governs the 'way of the world', including human action. Individual human action is in this scheme a mere moment of a larger development of the cycles of reason itself. It might work, though I wouldn't call the propositions 'synthetic a priori', it is Kantian language. What is meant is that there are paths of reason that govern the world, including human action. What I think is impossible though, is to come to such structures without observation. We would first need a model of how human reason itself is part of a larger movement of reason that governs the entire world.
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

BeeT
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 27, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 12/27/06 - 12:13 PM:	#5
Are a priori synthetic propositions rationalist or empiricist? I'm assuming it's rationalist, but a confirmation would be good.

johnnycatholic
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 30, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 12/30/06 - 04:18 PM: Subject: Books	#6
Can anyone recomend any good books on this topic?

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 93
Total Posts: 2750

Posted 01/02/07 - 01:08 AM:	#7
nosos I've probably said all this before I'll say it again here as this is a thread dedicated to the subject. I don’t see how this method can be seen to succeed. The results of the method purport to say something about reality and yet they are unfalsifiable. If Praxeology produces a claim that isn’t falsifiable which contradicts a claim which is, are these contradictory? The whole basis for synthetic a priori propositions are that they are necessarilly true in order that anything else can be grasped about reality. So given that we can experience things attall, such propositions must be true. So, with that in mind, why should we expect such propositions to be falsifiable? If, in order to experience anything, such propositions must be true, how can we possibly even conceive of (let alone experience) any other propositions that would contradict them? As for the primary axiom of praxeology (and, by the way, the only one which is regarded as being synthetic a priori, there are also several supplimentary emperical axioms), how could we possibly experience that humans don't act? How could we even postulate that it is false without acting?

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror
Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 5098

Posted 01/02/07 - 03:25 AM:	#8
If 'humans act' is the primary axiom of praxeology it will have to make more assumptions to say anything about this behaviour. From 'humans act', we can't conclude anything without empirical observation on how they act.
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 93
Total Posts: 2750

Posted 01/02/07 - 04:06 AM:	#9
Tobias wrote: If 'humans act' is the primary axiom of praxeology it will have to make more assumptions to say anything about this behaviour. From 'humans act', we can't conclude anything without empirical observation on how they act. The statement requires qualification, yes. Mises goes on immediately to make clear that, by action, he refers to purposeful behaviour. To be distinguished from instinctive or reflexive behaviour. Therefore praxeology is really the logic of purposeful behaviour. As to what we can deduce from that, and how you go about deriving an economic methodology from this, I suggest reading the first part of Human Action, Epistemological Problems of Economics or Economic Science and the Austrian Method. A more general look at Praxeology can be found here: What the Hell is Praxeology? Edited by Fried Egg on 01/02/07 - 06:05 AM

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror
Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 5098

Posted 01/02/07 - 05:16 AM:	#10
Mises goes on immediately to make clear that, by action, he refers to purposeful behaviour. To be distinguished from instinctive or reflexive behaviour. I would immediately jump to criticism on this point. I don't think it is at all clear to neatly estanblish where instictve behaviour stops and purposeful action begins. Instinctive action is usually purposeful. Furthermore we may think we have a clear purpose in mind when performing X, but our actual otive might be an instinctive driving force Y. Mises must presuppose self reflective insight into our actions, but this is a highly dubsous presupposition. regards Tobi
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.