Comments on: Meyerson the Magnificently Mistaken http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/meyerson-the-magnificently-mistaken.html where orders emerge Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:06:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: D.G. Lesvic http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/meyerson-the-magnificently-mistaken.html/comment-page-1#comment-184353 D.G. Lesvic Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:47:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6680#comment-184353 Vike, I was in a hurry before, but can answer you with a little more care now. You start out agreeing that there is no non-quantitative mathematics, that it is all about quantities. So where are the quantities in economics? You talk about abstractions from them. But that is to presume the quantities to be abstracted from. Where are they? Next, you say that mathematics is a superior language. Is that just in economics or in everything? Why in economics any more than anything else, or, if in everything, why don’t we drop English altogether, and speak only in mathematics? You say that mathematics is innocent, and it makes no sense for me to blame it for its misuse. Mathematics: I find you guilty of short-cuts, and sentence you to five years of hard labor on the rock pile, counting the rocks, one by one. You said, “To complain THAT he laid it out mathematically is as meaningless as claiming that he laid it out in Latvian.” And as meaningful. You said, “You must find the misidentified concepts in his assumptions, or confess that you don't really know why or if he is wrong.” He has confused mathematical with logical concepts. You asked, “Can your English descriptions come up with actual numbers? If not, then why would you hold a mathematical description to a different standard?” I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t expect any language or method of description to come up with examples of something that didn’t exist. You asked, “Isn't it useful to understand the abstract relationship between quantities?” Yes. And then you asked, “If not, then what exactly do your English-described concepts tell us that is useful?” Would you like an example? You conclude: “Errors of thought and sophistry are false thinking--regardless of how those thoughts are expressed.” You ought to know. Vike,

I was in a hurry before, but can answer you with a little more care now.

You start out agreeing that there is no non-quantitative mathematics, that it is all about quantities. So where are the quantities in economics?

You talk about abstractions from them. But that is to presume the quantities to be abstracted from. Where are they?

Next, you say that mathematics is a superior language. Is that just in economics or in everything? Why in economics any more than anything else, or, if in everything, why don’t we drop English altogether, and speak only in mathematics?

You say that mathematics is innocent, and it makes no sense for me to blame it for its misuse.

Mathematics: I find you guilty of short-cuts, and sentence you to five years of hard labor on the rock pile, counting the rocks, one by one.

You said, “To complain THAT he laid it out mathematically is as meaningless as claiming that he laid it out in Latvian.”

And as meaningful.

You said, “You must find the misidentified concepts in his assumptions, or confess that you don’t really know why or if he is wrong.”

He has confused mathematical with logical concepts.

You asked, “Can your English descriptions come up with actual numbers? If not, then why would you hold a mathematical description to a different standard?”

I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t expect any language or method of description to come up with examples of something that didn’t exist.

You asked, “Isn’t it useful to understand the abstract relationship between quantities?”

Yes.

And then you asked, “If not, then what exactly do your English-described concepts tell us that is useful?”

Would you like an example?

You conclude: “Errors of thought and sophistry are false thinking–regardless of how those thoughts are expressed.”

You ought to know.

]]> By: DG. Lesvic http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/meyerson-the-magnificently-mistaken.html/comment-page-1#comment-184328 DG. Lesvic Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:55:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6680#comment-184328 Vike, I don't think you understand how I really feel about you, so tell me how to say I love you in mathematics. And, while you're at it, can't stand you. Vike,

I don’t think you understand how I really feel about you, so tell me how to say I love you in mathematics. And, while you’re at it, can’t stand you.

]]> By: D.G. Lesvic http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/meyerson-the-magnificently-mistaken.html/comment-page-1#comment-184325 D.G. Lesvic Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:30:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6680#comment-184325 Viking, I sure can't understand you in English, so why didn't you try explaining all that to me in mathematics, if it's such a superior language? And why don't we dispense with English altogether, and speak mathematics in everything, not just economics? Viking,

I sure can’t understand you in English, so why didn’t you try explaining all that to me in mathematics, if it’s such a superior language?

And why don’t we dispense with English altogether, and speak mathematics in everything, not just economics?

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/meyerson-the-magnificently-mistaken.html/comment-page-1#comment-184262 Anonymous Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:39:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6680#comment-184262 Jeff was taking a very shallow wade through the ambiguities. The abstractions that form mathematics are precisely abstractions from quantities. The relations are abstractions of relationships among quantities. Mathematics is THE discipline for thinking about quantities.The "counting without numbers and measuring without magnitudes" isn't false. It is merely abstraction--the recognition of similarities and differences between observations. And it is abstraction so close to its concretes that it is prime facie true. How can you deny that a common characteristic of 2 feet, 2 dollars, 2 Euros, 2 fish, and 2 seconds, is accurately embodied in the concept of "2"? Would you deny that the quantitative relationships derived from "2" are not precisely those observed in the collection of concretes from which it was abstracted?And whether you want to just think through the relationships internally, or describe them in written English, or express them in the well-developed symbolics of mathematics, makes no difference when it is the same concepts being communicated. If your thinking is rational, your conclusions will be the same. However, mathematics is a recommended language, since it is less ambiguous and may by virtue of the symbolic presentation reveal insights into the greater well-developed field of mathematics that you otherwise would not have seen.Mathematics is completely innocent of anything, in every possible context, in the same way that noncontradiction, identity, consciousness, and monitor you are looking at are innocent. They simply are.Now if you think some mathematical model of reality is false or unrealistic, it makes no sense for you to blame "mathematics". If his model doesn't work, there must be a REAL reason for it not working. Assuming his mathematical manipulations are correct, then there must be something in his implicit or explicit assumptions. At least the fact that he laid it out mathematically gives you a clearer picture of what he is claiming (provided you have sufficient mathematics proficiency), and therefore an easier task of identifying the mistakes.To complain THAT he laid it out mathematically is as meaningless as claiming that he laid it out in Latvian. You must find the misidentified concepts in his assumptions, or confess that you don't really know why or if he is wrong."can never give you any actual examples of their alleged mathematical economics, ecconomics with actual numbers"Maybe that is asking too much. Can your English descriptions come up with actual numbers? If not, then why would you hold a mathematical description to a different standard? Isn't it useful to understand the abstract relationship between quantities? If not, then what exactly do your English-described concepts tell us that is useful?Errors of thought and sophistry are false thinking--regardless of how those thoughts are expressed. Jeff was taking a very shallow wade through the ambiguities. The abstractions that form mathematics are precisely abstractions from quantities. The relations are abstractions of relationships among quantities. Mathematics is THE discipline for thinking about quantities.The “counting without numbers and measuring without magnitudes” isn’t false. It is merely abstraction–the recognition of similarities and differences between observations. And it is abstraction so close to its concretes that it is prime facie true. How can you deny that a common characteristic of 2 feet, 2 dollars, 2 Euros, 2 fish, and 2 seconds, is accurately embodied in the concept of “2″? Would you deny that the quantitative relationships derived from “2″ are not precisely those observed in the collection of concretes from which it was abstracted?And whether you want to just think through the relationships internally, or describe them in written English, or express them in the well-developed symbolics of mathematics, makes no difference when it is the same concepts being communicated. If your thinking is rational, your conclusions will be the same. However, mathematics is a recommended language, since it is less ambiguous and may by virtue of the symbolic presentation reveal insights into the greater well-developed field of mathematics that you otherwise would not have seen.Mathematics is completely innocent of anything, in every possible context, in the same way that noncontradiction, identity, consciousness, and monitor you are looking at are innocent. They simply are.Now if you think some mathematical model of reality is false or unrealistic, it makes no sense for you to blame “mathematics”. If his model doesn’t work, there must be a REAL reason for it not working. Assuming his mathematical manipulations are correct, then there must be something in his implicit or explicit assumptions. At least the fact that he laid it out mathematically gives you a clearer picture of what he is claiming (provided you have sufficient mathematics proficiency), and therefore an easier task of identifying the mistakes.To complain THAT he laid it out mathematically is as meaningless as claiming that he laid it out in Latvian. You must find the misidentified concepts in his assumptions, or confess that you don’t really know why or if he is wrong.”can never give you any actual examples of their alleged mathematical economics, ecconomics with actual numbers”Maybe that is asking too much. Can your English descriptions come up with actual numbers? If not, then why would you hold a mathematical description to a different standard? Isn’t it useful to understand the abstract relationship between quantities? If not, then what exactly do your English-described concepts tell us that is useful?Errors of thought and sophistry are false thinking–regardless of how those thoughts are expressed.

]]> By: Justin P http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/meyerson-the-magnificently-mistaken.html/comment-page-1#comment-184151 Justin P Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:34:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6680#comment-184151 Well good thing I didn't concede anything. Well good thing I didn’t concede anything.

]]>