Freedomain Radio

gmkd:

 This is something Hoppe addresses explicitly. If you are talking about justification for an action, then during a debate is all that matters, as justification is done in debate.

Update: regarding the "It applies only to the people engaged in debate", Iv'e written about it here: http://argumentationethics.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/argumentation-ethics-objections/

I don't understand how this relates to the content I've posted.

Kawlinz:

gmkd:

 This is something Hoppe addresses explicitly. If you are talking about justification for an action, then during a debate is all that matters, as justification is done in debate.

Update: regarding the "It applies only to the people engaged in debate", Iv'e written about it here: http://argumentationethics.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/argumentation-ethics-objections/

I don't understand how this relates to the content I've posted.

The fact that truth is prefereble to falsehood during a debate is all that matters, because when your taling about ethics you are talking about what is justified not what can phisicly be done. Justification only takes place in a debate (by definition).

gmkd:

The fact that truth is prefereble to falsehood during a debate is all that matters, because when your taling about ethics you are talking about what is justified not what can phisicly be done. Justification only takes place in a debate (by definition).

That's quite a good point. Even internally to someone's head, it comes out in the context of a debate.

Mr. C:

gmkd:

The fact that truth is prefereble to falsehood during a debate is all that matters, because when your taling about ethics you are talking about what is justified not what can phisicly be done. Justification only takes place in a debate (by definition).

That's quite a good point. Even internally to someone's head, it comes out in the context of a debate.

Argumentation Ethics, baby... Staying in context.

The problem that in UPB it wasn't explicit enough and from there also rise the mistakes there.

gmkd:

Mr. C:

gmkd:

The fact that truth is prefereble to falsehood during a debate is all that matters, because when your taling about ethics you are talking about what is justified not what can phisicly be done. Justification only takes place in a debate (by definition).

That's quite a good point. Even internally to someone's head, it comes out in the context of a debate.

Argumentation Ethics, baby... Staying in context.

The problem that in UPB it wasn't explicit enough and from there also rise the mistakes there.

but isn't the universality of preferring truth independent of context? The person who debates the UPB claim is defending the *truth* of the falsehood he believes at that moment (truth is not preferable). And it could be said that all actions require a justification prior to choice (causality), be it rational or irrational, spoken or not... In other words, the universality of preferring truth comes from the fact that truth is universal, even inside the irrational mind.

This is, however, not the case for the action axiom, since the concept of purpose is very different from that of truth. There is no logical deduction of universality there for sure.

 

By the way, what happened last night with this question? I couldn't listen to the show... What did Stef say?

Joseito:

gmkd:

Mr. C:

gmkd:

The fact that truth is prefereble to falsehood during a debate is all that matters, because when your taling about ethics you are talking about what is justified not what can phisicly be done. Justification only takes place in a debate (by definition).

That's quite a good point. Even internally to someone's head, it comes out in the context of a debate.

Argumentation Ethics, baby... Staying in context.

The problem that in UPB it wasn't explicit enough and from there also rise the mistakes there.

but isn't the universality of preferring truth independent of context? The person who debates the UPB claim is defending the *truth* of the falsehood he believes at that moment (truth is not preferable). And it could be said that all actions require a justification prior to choice (causality), be it rational or irrational, spoken or not... In other words, the universality of preferring truth comes from the fact that truth is universal, even inside the irrational mind.

This is, however, not the case for the action axiom, since the concept of purpose is very different from that of truth. There is no logical deduction of universality there for sure.

 By the way, what happened last night with this question? I couldn't listen to the show... What did Stef say?

 

If you'll look at UPB the book, at the actual proofs, these premises are derived by showing they are assumed in discourse.

 

P.S. UPB is indeed not explicit about it. Knowledge of praxeology was missing when written. Using them as if they are metaphysically true, "out of the context" of discourse, is a non sequitur, and indeed I think this is a problem with UPB (most evident when "esthetics" are discussed). I don't think the 100 something pages of UPB is the coherent argument we need put forward...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joseito:

but isn't the universality of preferring truth independent of context? The person who debates the UPB claim is defending the *truth* of the falsehood he believes at that moment (truth is not preferable). And it could be said that all actions require a justification prior to choice (causality), be it rational or irrational, spoken or not... In other words, the universality of preferring truth comes from the fact that truth is universal, even inside the irrational mind.

This is, however, not the case for the action axiom, since the concept of purpose is very different from that of truth. There is no logical deduction of universality there for sure.

Does this not assume things about the purpose of debate?  I believe the purpose of debate is to help decide what truth can actually be shown, not necessarily to promote it.  You could say promoting truth is a benefit, but we are kind of untruthful if our purpose of debating is simply to "prefer truth" and also claim sound reasoning is required.  If I want to say something deductively and make sure it is a sound step-by-step airtight argument, then technically I am preferring "proof", not just "truth".

It may be a "truth" that Alpha Centauri has a planet with 6 moons.  But if I offer no proof whatsoever and you have serious doubts about my claim, it is clear we are not simply wanting truth.  We want proof.  We can't convey truth through a debate.  To say the action axiom is supported by this misconception that "proof=truth" is a bit crazy to me.

 

gmkd:

Kawlinz:

gmkd:

 This is something Hoppe addresses explicitly. If you are talking about justification for an action, then during a debate is all that matters, as justification is done in debate.

Update: regarding the "It applies only to the people engaged in debate", Iv'e written about it here: http://argumentationethics.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/argumentation-ethics-objections/

I don't understand how this relates to the content I've posted.

The fact that truth is prefereble to falsehood during a debate is all that matters, because when your taling about ethics you are talking about what is justified not what can phisicly be done. Justification only takes place in a debate (by definition).

I guess that I dont understand what you mean by "justification" then.

Zach's assertion that he only relies on truth being preferable to falsehood during the first debate and only with John is false, no?

Kawlinz:

gmkd:

Kawlinz:

gmkd:

 This is something Hoppe addresses explicitly. If you are talking about justification for an action, then during a debate is all that matters, as justification is done in debate.

Update: regarding the "It applies only to the people engaged in debate", Iv'e written about it here: http://argumentationethics.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/argumentation-ethics-objections/

I don't understand how this relates to the content I've posted.

The fact that truth is prefereble to falsehood during a debate is all that matters, because when your taling about ethics you are talking about what is justified not what can phisicly be done. Justification only takes place in a debate (by definition).

I guess that I dont understand what you mean by "justification" then.

Zach's assertion that he only relies on truth being preferable to falsehood during the first debate and only with John is false, no?

       "what you mean by "justification" then."

If A' and B' want to resolve their dispute like only humans can, by using words, they must than provide justification. i.e. engage in argumentation. During the argumentation they must assume that true propositions are "preferable" to false propositions, or else they cannot rationaly resolve their dispute. (See my post)

shiinee:

"Human action is purposeful"

This is the exact same issue I have with the argument Stef has made numerous times

No, it isn't. "Human action is purposeful" is inherently true, by definition. "Action" is a motion of intent (or like Mises put it himself: Action is will put in motion). Mises phrase could easily be transfered into "Human motion of intent is purposeful" to make it clearer and without losing the necessary intention. There exists human motions without intent too. Like breathing and heartbeats. These are not controlled by the mind, but the brain. Motions without intent are not actions. Mises' action axiom is axiomatic, and is contextual equal to "Bachelors are not married". Pretty silly trying to falsify such a statement.

gmkd:

Kawlinz:

gmkd:

Kawlinz:

gmkd:

 This is something Hoppe addresses explicitly. If you are talking about justification for an action, then during a debate is all that matters, as justification is done in debate.

Update: regarding the "It applies only to the people engaged in debate", Iv'e written about it here: http://argumentationethics.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/argumentation-ethics-objections/

I don't understand how this relates to the content I've posted.

The fact that truth is prefereble to falsehood during a debate is all that matters, because when your taling about ethics you are talking about what is justified not what can phisicly be done. Justification only takes place in a debate (by definition).

I guess that I dont understand what you mean by "justification" then.

Zach's assertion that he only relies on truth being preferable to falsehood during the first debate and only with John is false, no?

       "what you mean by "justification" then."

If A' and B' want to resolve their dispute like only humans can, by using words, they must than provide justification. i.e. engage in argumentation. During the argumentation they must assume that true propositions are "preferable" to false propositions, or else they cannot rationaly resolve their dispute. (See my post)

I agree with that, but I still don't understand how that relates to my initial post, or how your blog post relates to it.

Kawlinz:

gmkd:

Kawlinz:

gmkd:

Kawlinz:

gmkd:

 This is something Hoppe addresses explicitly. If you are talking about justification for an action, then during a debate is all that matters, as justification is done in debate.

Update: regarding the "It applies only to the people engaged in debate", Iv'e written about it here: http://argumentationethics.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/argumentation-ethics-objections/

I don't understand how this relates to the content I've posted.

The fact that truth is prefereble to falsehood during a debate is all that matters, because when your taling about ethics you are talking about what is justified not what can phisicly be done. Justification only takes place in a debate (by definition).

I guess that I dont understand what you mean by "justification" then.

Zach's assertion that he only relies on truth being preferable to falsehood during the first debate and only with John is false, no?

       "what you mean by "justification" then."

If A' and B' want to resolve their dispute like only humans can, by using words, they must than provide justification. i.e. engage in argumentation. During the argumentation they must assume that true propositions are "preferable" to false propositions, or else they cannot rationaly resolve their dispute. (See my post)

I agree with that, but I still don't understand how that relates to my initial post, or how your blog post relates to it.

 

Kawlinz, I qoute the message I'm refering to.