Nathan,
What's up with the selective quoting and selective response? Your debate tactics are disingenuous. Let me explain...
Nathan McKaskle: David J. Heinrich:
Nathan,
Bullshit psychologizing.
To say that that comes from some psychological issues from parents is BS.
Calling something bullshit isn't exactly a logical or empirical
argument against a well reasoned claim. You kind of have to go with
that whole logic and empiricism thing if you want to make any headway
there and prove anybody wrong.
You quoted a bald assertion by Stef that the defense of Ron Paul stems
either from a desire to see that those in power can not be corrupt, or
from parental issues. Why the hell do I need to provide a well reasoned
opposition to that? It wasn't a well-reasoned claim. I was simply
showing how irrelevant it is; as well as how insulting or paternalizing
that kind of comment can be. Your comparisons to some homo who jacks
off in a movie theatre only further illustrate the nature of such
insults.
However, in fact, I did provide a rebuttal to that claim, noting that
the defense of Ron Paul stems from a huge body of libertarian
literature, and isn't just invented de novo, but is implicit in the
writings of Rothbard, Hoppe, Block, Kinsella, and others on libertarian
strategy. You chose not to omit that response from your quote, thus
misrepresenting what I said.
David J. Heinrich:
Maybe your and Stef's insistence that no positive change can be brought
about politically stems from some parental issues.
Reversing a claim (The "no you are!" argument) or the Pee Wee Herman
("I know you are but what am I?" argument ) doesn't exactly do the job
of providing a well reasoned argument against said claim.
See my above response. Again, insulting comparisons. I did provide an
argument, which you chose to omit. Furthermore, the point was to show
how annoying, obnoxious, paternalizing, and irrelevant these kinds of
comments are. What is the point of saying that someone is taking a
position because of psychological issues? Why is their personal
interest in it relevant? How does that affect the validity of their
position?
Maybe someone fervently argues that 2 + 2 = 4 because their parents
lied to them from birth, telling them it was 5, using various tricks
(such as setting up equations where x = 0, and implicitly dividing by 0
to get 2 + 2 = 5). Or maybe it's just because falsehoods anger them.
Either way, it doesn't affect the truth or falseness of their position,
and to bring it up is a perfect example of a logical fallacy in debate
(an ad hominem against the arguer, instead of an argument against their
argument).
David J. Heinrich: How about the flawed methodology
Calling something flawed is also not an argument.
Again, disingenuous. You cut out the rest of what I actually said,
which is "I pointed out," thus the complete sentence would read "How
about the flawed methodology I pointed out".
I was explicitly referring to a prior post, which I linked to in a subsequent post.
While I don't expect you to go back and look for which post that was,
if you're not going to do that, you shouldn't say I'm just asserting
something without any argument.
For some references on this, see
Long, Roderick T. Realism and Abstraction in Economics: Aristotle and Rand versus Friedman.
http://www.mises.org/asc/2004/long.pdf
Gordon, David. The Philosophical Origins of Austrian Economics. http://www.mises.org/philorig/philorig.pdf
Mises, Ludwig von. Theory and History. http://www.mises.org/th.asp
Mises,
Ludwig von. Social Science and Natural Science.
http://www.mises.org/mmmp/mmmp1.asp. This quote pretty much
conclusively shows why we cannot use the scientific method -- which is
used in the natural sciences, such as chemsitry, physics, biology,
geology, etc -- for the social sciences. I have an undergrad B.S. in
Molecular Genetics, so naturally I learned quite a bit about what is
necessary for good experiments. I agree.
The social sciences cannot make use of experiments. The experience with
which they have to deal is the experience of complex phenomena. They
are in the same position as acoustics would be if the only material of
the scientist were the hearing of a concerto or the noise of a
waterfall. It is nowadays fashionable to style the statistical bureaus
laboratories. This is misleading. The material which statistics
provides is historical, that means the outcome of a complexity of
forces. The social sciences never enjoy the advantage of observing the
consequences of a change in one element only, other conditions being
equal.
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Economic Science and the Austrian Method. http://www.mises.org/esandtam.asp
David J. Heinrich: No-one here has, nor could they,
offered a response to my criticism that you can't do experiments in the
social sciences, control for variables. Hence, simply looking at
"before and after" empirical evidence, and using that as conclusive, is
the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. We need to analyze things using
the correct method for this kind of social sciences, praxeology.
Yes empirical evidence just isn't enough when you go up against the ad hominem.
This is the epitome of selective response. In the original comment
by Nathan, he highlighted "simply looking at 'before and after'
empirical
evidence, and using that as conclusive". However, I went on to not the
fallacyof that, post hoc ergo propter hoc:
that is, after the fact, therefore because of the fact. In short, this
is cave-man "reasoning": lightening struck, then I caught a fish;
therefore, I caught a fish because lightening struck. That's a non-sequitar. The reason is that other things may have also happened, which caused such.
Any rigorous training in the scientific method -- which you would
get from an undergrad degree in one of the natural sciences -- will
tell you that you need to perform controlled experiments. If
you're trying to make a reasonable conclusion that "factor x" is
responsible for "y", then you need to control all other variables
except x, and see what happens with and without x. This cannot be done
in the social sciences. That is why I criticize the question, "Has
spending in Ron Paul's district gone up or down". I criticize it
because other variables have not been controlled for; and, unlike with
microscopic variables (such as a particular kind of protein), we can
easily look and see what Ron Paul's actually doing, in terms of his
votes, and lack of "winning contracts".
This is not some "sophisticated argument" invented de novo
specifically to defend Ron Paul. This argument is merely the result of
a rigorous training in the scientific and praxeological methods, and of
arguments made with regards to those methods, in some cases (Mises) as
far back as the 20s and 30s.