Ideology vs. Free Thought?

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Assertion and attacks.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are you saying libertarians aren't ideolgues?

Occupy isn't far left and doesn't want to "overthrow of the free market and massive confiscation of private wealth" lots of libertarians involved in it actually, thats just an assertion.

Who do you mean when you say "the left"?
It seems to cover almost everyone.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"if you've got an ideology, you've already got your mind made up. You know all the answers and that makes evidence irrelevant and arguments a waste of time".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That Clinton quote makes more sense every post you make.

Why do you object to being called an ideologue you seem to think its a brave thing to do?
Only cowards don't follow one and are just "populist". You even managed to get marxixm into it!!

southsiderosie

20Cent wrote: »

"if you've got an ideology, you've already got your mind made up. You know all the answers and that makes evidence irrelevant and arguments a waste of time".

MOD NOTE:

This kind of stuff isn't engagement, and it certainly isn't appropriate for the political theory forum. If you (or anyone else for that matter) don't have a substantive response to other posters, then think twice before hitting reply.

KyussBishop

Had a long reply there which probably doesn't fit too well after the mod warning, but summarizing some of it:
Clintons quote from earlier is more about what kind of behaviour you see from a typical ideologue, rather than any kind of definition of it; as elaborated on way earlier in the thread, one of the defining parts of the more common use of the word ideology isn't "a set of beliefs and ideas" but really more a judgment of how well a particular set of views fits the ideologies of pragmatism/empiricism/falsifiability and well...the general scientific method (an ideology in itself, but it is one which has achieved uncontestable credibility through its results).

A set of views is judged by how closely it tries to follow that, and if a set of views does not follow it it has less credibility (but not none, as there are some fields which have not yet evolved enough to be adapted to the scientific method), and if a set of views depends upon contradicting that it is judged as having little-to-no credibility.

An ideologue (in the pejorative sense) usually depends upon arguments which, in whole or in part, has to reject or directly contradict part of the scientific method, or relies on fallacious reasoning otherwise not commensurate with scientific principles; this fits pretty well with Libertarianism, which rejects empiricism (except where it can find supporting evidence).

However, an ideologue is also very well described by their typical behaviour, which is usually a much more enlightening way to look at it than any base definition; this can be pretty diverse though, but it generally boils down to many many variations of well crafted fallacious arguments (often knowingly false), often with a conflict of interest underlying their motives (though doesn't always mean they don't believe it themselves as well).

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Tbh, I think he is looking at it the wrong way. I'm sure if you looked at quotes from Tories when the rate was raised you'd probably get the same accusations at Labour.

The way I'd look at it is, is there really that much difference between the 3 main parties there or indeed here? All 3 are pretty similar and you could probably point out the major differences on one hand, the one thing they all share is telling the electorate what they want to hear.

Its a far cry from the 80's with Thatcher and Foot. FG are an exception in a way, ditched a popular politician and liberal strategy, suffered electorally and only recovered because of FF failure.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You do an extremely analogous thing, by trying to pejoratively pin people to the ideology of Marxism (so unsubtly, that you do it even when they specifically reject it and point out that they disagree with key underpinning parts of it).

Effectively, you try to pin other people to a flawed ideology, to try and normalize/legitimize your own admitted adherence to an ideology, as if that's ok.
It's like saying "oh but everyone's ideological so there's nothing wrong with it" when that is false, because people who adhere (or at least ascribe) to (roughly) the scientific method and scientific principles, are not ideological by the most used definition of the word.

Your arguments also heavily match the behavior of an ideologue as well, taking your own ideology as 'true by default', mostly refusing to discuss it without heavy use of fallacious methods of argument, trying to divide discussion along emotional/social lines (the "Us vs Them" stuff), and even going so far as to reject empiricism (additionally, Libertarian views in their current form, also depend upon rejecting falsifiability too).

Permabear wrote: »

In a political world without ideology, politicians and parties all cluster in the center, vying for the same voters on the basis of personality and populist policies. The voter winds up with no meaningful choice — and the end result of that is growing disillusionment with democracy itself.

Believe it or not, one does require the courage of one's convictions not to modify one's position every time a new poll or a new focus group suggests that there is an advantage to be gained.

By the definition of ideology as "a set of beliefs and ideas", yes; by the definition of ideology as "non-adherence to scientific principles", no.

In the latter case (ideological as not adhering to scientific principles; usually motivated by ulterior motives where the followers don't even believe in their ideology), there have been any number of massively warped forms of government, from Facism, oligopolistic/autocratic Communism/Socialism, and oligopolistic/autocratic Capitalism.

An ideology that deliberately does not adhere (or even ascribe) to scientific principles, can be warped to whatever purpose it's proponents desire, because it doesn't have to have any scientific consistency; when science itself is rejected, usually it's an excuse covering up ulterior motives.


My views on Libertarianism are that it is ideologically inflexible (i.e. strictly not adhering to scientific principles in key ways), for the political motivation of removing political power from government, and letting that political power fall in the hands of powerful enterprise, solely for the benefit of the individuals in influential positions in business who stand to gain from this.

If the grand promises Libertarianism makes (mostly depending upon efficient markets, which is itself debunked) would turn out to be true, the above may not come to pass, but there are so many problems with the scientific consistency of the theory, and claims it makes underpinned by that, that it just is not scientifically credible, so that (to me) puts ulterior motives as the prime motivating force behind it.

This is completely at odds with the anti-government stance of its ideology, because it gradually puts even more significant political power collectively in the hands of influential individuals in key areas of the market.

It's no coincidence really, that some of the biggest supporters of Libertarianism have a big conflict of interest, where they stand to gain personally from its policies.

ButtimersLaw

20Cent wrote: »

Say there is a situation the ideologue already has their solution decided, other ways are dismissed because they are not consistent with the ideology.

Valmont wrote: »

Originally Posted by Bill Clinton
Banning human cloning reflects our humanity. It is the right thing to do. Creating a child through this new method calls into question our most fundamental beliefs. It has the potential to threaten the sacred family bonds at the very core of our ideals and our society...

It’s revealing 20Cent don’t discuss the above quote and we can all assume that might be because it seems not to agree with his views on Clinton.

I guess Clinton is like many of us, not 100% ideology free, but someone who struggles with balancing priorities and ideals and others expectations and other influences.

Most politicians have to make sacrifices for their position, or for their advancement and so on, and we are surrounded by examples of that in our papers, radios and tv’s every day, when politicians say they believe and support a policy, when as a person they do not but as a politician they have to.

That you appear to not want to address a remark from Clinton which looks like ideology suggests you are unable to see him in a complex light, and just want to believe he is 100% ideology free.

Like most politicians, Clinton would probably have said black was white to get elected, which is not to say he is a bad person, just someone whose ambition was the driving force which ran roughshod over his other characteristics.

Valmont

KyussBishop, how do you reconcile your views with the fact that one of the (if not the) foremost enlightenment philosophers (and thus a very important intellectual founder of the modern libertarian movement), John Locke, was also a committed empiricist? Have you gained an insight that proves John Locke's system as entirely contradictory? Because that is what you are implying.

In your eager attempt to do away with libertarianism as simply 'unscientific', do you not realise that the doctrines of falsifiability and empiricism are actually at odds with each other? Karl Popper devoted decades to this problem and here you are saying things like "Libertarians don't adhere to the principles of empiricism and falsifiability"; as if you just add them together and hey, presto, the scientific method!

You're not fooling anyone that libertarianism (all of it) is 'unscientific' because (1) as mentioned above, there is considerable doubt that you understand the concepts you are so eager to use as a weapon against an ideology clearly at odds with your own and (2) you've never really stated how libertarianism isn't scientific!

This is basically a modern and poorly worked out version of the historic argument that political position X is inherently wrong because it's 'unholy'. You won't stamp out debate that easily.

Valmont

I have thought of a thread title which I think suits everyone's needs:

"Should ideologues stay in the closet? Or is it safe to come out?"

Maybe I'll send it to Time Magazine.

KyussBishop

Empiricism and Falsifiability are not at odds with each other, they are both tools used as part of the scientific method, the former to collect well-grounded information to construct a theory, and the latter is used to determine the credibility of a theory based on the falsifiable claims it makes (it having little-to-no credibility where it does not predict anything, or where its predictions fail).

Economics has not graduated to the stage where it can become proper science, but Libertarianism coupled with Austrian economics stands apart in this regard, because it rejects even attempts to move towards empiricism and falsifiability (which means it rejects the idea the theory can be falsified based on evidence; just think of how ridiculous that is for a moment).

You can't really step around that; by any scientific judgment the 'praxeology' framework underlying Libertarianisms economics is not credible, it explicitly rejects the scientific method.

That means Libertarianism is inherently unscientific, and it does not even attempt to reconcile itself with the scientific method, it deliberately does not; to adopt a Libertarian society is to permanently discard the idea that economics should strive to adhere to scientific methods (and strive to someday become an actual science).


If the standards of the scientific method are unattainable for a theory or field of study (like economics), that's fine so long as it is something that is strived for (we have to make do with what philosophical tools we have), but Libertarianism is directly at odds with the scientific method and rejects key parts of it, so it is simply not credible to begin with.


Just think of how bonkers that is for a while, that science itself is rejected (do you know any other frameworks of ideas that reject science, and maintain credibility?); this is the theory that proponents would run our entire society on, with the belief that it will 'just work', even in the face of contradicting data and historical evidence.

When science itself is rejected like that, it should make anyone suspicious, and the first place to look is at peoples motives, and whether or not they have any conflict of interest; why do so many of the Libertarian movements prime funders and supporters, sit in a position where they stand a lot to gain personally, from its policies?

It's just simply not credible that the movement is underpinned by a true belief in its philosophies (that fly in the face of science), rather than being underpinned by the (much more rational conclusion, in terms of self interest) prime supporters potential to personally gain from it (which would be the perfect example of ideological behaviour, in the sense that the term is often used).

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I consider someone who applies a set of rules to every issue in order to evaluate what is the right solution to be tying one or both hands behind their backs. They have already decided despite whatever evidence or proof is put before them. It is a closed minded method. Following something in a highly axiomatic manner is not conducive to deductive thought. Many possible solutions are disregarded, it means literally decreasing your options. I'd prefer if reason and logic is applied to the available evidence to find the best solution which could be a mixture of things left and/or right.

coffee_cake

So we have Kyuss applying a set of rules and thinking Lib is at fault for not applying them(with no basis for this assertion); then we have 20cent accusing Lib of applying rules and saying it's at fault for applying them (with no basis for this assertion).

Good to clear that one up

20Cent

bluewolf wrote: »

So we have Kyuss applying a set of rules and thinking Lib is at fault for not applying them(with no basis for this assertion); then we have 20cent accusing Lib of applying rules and saying it's at fault for applying them (with no basis for this assertion).

Good to clear that one up

Two totally different points.

Kyuss is talking about how Austrian economists don't value scientific or empirical evidence for their beliefs which is true.
I was referring to how they apply a set of axioms (called praxeology) to deduce human behavior. Which they also do.

Just to clear that one up.

KyussBishop

bluewolf wrote: »

So we have Kyuss applying a set of rules and thinking Lib is at fault for not applying them(with no basis for this assertion); then we have 20cent accusing Lib of applying rules and saying it's at fault for applying them (with no basis for this assertion).

Good to clear that one up

Is there a better set of rules other than the scientific method, to set as a standard to apply/compare a theory to?

Libertarianism is free to apply to whatever philosophical principles it wants (as it does), but the credibility of all theories are typically judged based upon the principles of the scientific method, and how well they adhere to them (or how well they aspire to them, when it's not possible to adhere).

If something is directly at odds with those principles, is it not correct to say that it is not scientifically credible?


What other societally prominent ideological frameworks can you think of, which deliberately reject scientific principles? (are any of them respectable or credible?)

Eliot Rosewater

KyussBishop wrote: »

Is there a better set of rules other than the scientific method, to set as a standard to apply/compare a theory to?

Libertarianism is free to apply to whatever philosophical principles it wants (as it does), but the credibility of all theories are typically judged based upon the principles of the scientific method, and how well they adhere to them (or how well they aspire to them, when it's not possible to adhere).

The "credibility" of political beliefs are most certainly not judged on the basis of the scientific method. The scientific method is only applicable when there is a shared goal and multiple approaches to it. In science, the shared goal is the determination of truth. The multiple approaches are the different theories designed to account for empirical evidence. Newtonian mechanics and general relativity can both be approaches to the same problem of determining the motions of the planets. On the basis of the scientific method we judge these on their ability to account for the (same) truth and choose the theory which performs best.

In politics it is not like this because there is no single shared goal. Different people have different ideas of what should be achieved. A social conservative might have as his goal the restriction of marriage to one man and one women; a social liberal, the extension of marriage to two people of the same sex. There is no universal goal, so the scientific method is not applicable. We judge a piece of legislation on its ability to satisfy the desires of either the conservative or the liberal -- there is no objective sense in which it is right or wrong.

We can attempt to apply the scientific method in a political discussion when someone makes a statement of the form "X causes Y", but in general political discussions are about what is right, not what is true. Here, as we have seen, the scientific method is not applicable.

Eliot Rosewater

This leads us on to the question of when the scientific method can be applied to statements of the form "X causes Y". (For example, "a minimum wage causes unemployment".) Your claim is that any economic statement can be tested through the scientific method; the Austrian claim is the opposite.

My chief concern with your point of view is that I cannot see any way in which a central concept in scientific practice - the isolation of effect - can be implemented in economics. Suppose we are physicists attempting to determine the effect of striking a snooker ball with another. We set up a pool table and place the two balls on it. Suppose the room we were performing the test in has a large fan blowing wind on the table. Before the tests begin we will surely have to remove this fan in order to ensure that, roughly speaking, the only force acting on the first snooker ball will be the force of the second ball striking it. Equally, we will have to ensure that the table is sufficiently level for gravitational effects to be negligible. The point here is that we isolate the effect of the second snooker ball striking the first. We eliminate all other effects so that any subsequent events (the snooker ball rolling away) can be attributed solely to the effect we are testing.

In what sense can we do this in economics? Every year thousands of pieces of economic regulation are made law; thousands of businesses are set up and closed down; the population changes, and the working population changes even faster. The incentives driving individual people change almost daily: prices go up and down; social welfare rates are changed; employment possibilities change, as does the desirably of taking welfare instead of work. There are external factors that have major effects, such as the weather, and equally large internal effects, such as changes of government. In this chaotic system, how precisely is it possible to test the effect of one given economic policy?

The Austrian solution is seemingly to focus on reasoning. It is not a concept alien to science. In fact, the easiest way to show that a 10kg ball and a 100kg ball fall with equal speed is not to climb a tower and throw balls off repeatedly. It is to reason that if it were that case that the 10kg ball went slower, then tying it to the 100kg ball should slow the latter down. But the combined system weighs 110kg, so now it should all be going faster.

I wonder have you actually read any books on Austrian economics? Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson is an easy to read convincing exposition of some "Austrian" ideas - such as that stimulus is not generally good - using reason. One should at least read it in the spirit of the scientific method and see if its approach is sufficient for believing economic facts.

KyussBishop

Sorry but just because a topic largely covers politics, does not mean it can discard science (especially when we are talking about economics, where theories make a lot of definite claims); politics (and the arguments underpinning political arguments) can and should be backed scientifically.

Your posts are largely an excuse for discarding the idea that Libertarianism should adhere or aspire to the scientific method; there is no reason at all why an economic theory should not strive to meet the standards of the scientific method, whereas Libertarianism explicitly rejects it.


I'm not claiming anything about individual economic statements either, I am pointing out that Austrian economics (and Libertarianism) explicitly rejects the scientific method, including the idea that empirical evidence can falsify its theory.
In other words, Austrians/Libertarians reject the very idea that any claims the theory makes can be falsified using evidence; which is completely ridiculous.

The way scientific theories (or theories aspiring to the scientific method) work, is that they make falsifiable predictions, and if empirical evidence comes up that is contradictory to the theory, it has been falsified.
Libertarians reject this idea, empirical evidence does not apply to their theory, as far as they are concerned; this means they can make any claims they want, and assert them as true, and evidence to the contrary can be ignored.

Doesn't matter how consistent a theories logical framework looks, the bigger your logical framework gets the more likely it is to have an unseen fault, which is why you need empirical evidence to support it and why you need falsifiable claims/predictions.
Fairly silly to reject these principles really as Austrians have no problem using empirical evidence to (rightly) falsify and criticize neoclassical/mainstream economics.


It's quite amusing to see such a straight-out rejection of the scientific method really, kind of like throwing your hands up and saying "oh well looks like economics isn't a proper science yet, therefore we're free to completely reject the scientific method altogether".

Eliot Rosewater

KyussBishop wrote: »

Sorry but just because a topic largely covers politics, does not mean it can discard science (especially when we are talking about economics, where theories make a lot of definite claims); politics (and the arguments underpinning political arguments) can and should be backed scientifically.

I have not claimed otherwise. I have just observed that claims that assert truths ("X causes Y") are not solely what political discussions are about. Generally, these discussions are about what is right or wrong, and there is no objective criterion for whether any set of political beliefs is right or wrong. Thus your claim that political beliefs are ultimately subject to testing through the scientific method is incorrect. At best you can say that certain claims that are made can be tested - but not beliefs overall.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Your posts are largely an excuse for discarding the idea that Libertarianism should adhere or aspire to the scientific method; there is no reason at all why an economic theory should not strive to meet the standards of the scientific method, whereas Libertarianism explicitly rejects it.

The bias with which you are approaching this subject is extremely clear through your stylization of my argument against the applicability of the scientific method in economics as an "excuse". As regards reasons for doubting the method's applicability, I have given you one above. Given that it deals with a core part of the scientific method - isolating effects - I consider it a rather strong reason. I notice that your post didn't actual deal with this, but merely restated your beliefs. This would be equivalent to a pope reigning during the scientific revolution "disproving" Gallileo's ideas by merely restating the geocentric position. I invite you to tell me why my reason for being skeptical of the use of empirical evidence to support specific economic claims is flawed. Why not be scientific about the debate?

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's quite amusing to see such a straight-out rejection of the scientific method really, kind of like throwing your hands up and saying "oh well looks like economics isn't a proper science yet, therefore we're free to completely reject the scientific method altogether".

Not believing the scientific method is generally applicable to economics seemingly offends your common sense. Given your support of scientific attitudes to debate, I'm surprised you put so much stock in your common sense. The example I presented earlier of the 10kg ball and the 100kg ball falling at different speeds offends my common sense, but I completely accept the argument. This is a part of science and academic discussion generally. We go beyond what instinctively appears to be the case and using reason and (when applicable) empirical evidence, discard our common sense and other instinctually held beliefs. To do otherwise is to be anti-intellectual.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I have not claimed otherwise. I have just observed that claims that assert truths ("X causes Y") are not solely what political discussions are about. Generally, these discussions are about what is right or wrong, and there is no objective criterion for whether any set of political beliefs is right or wrong. Thus your claim that political beliefs are ultimately subject to testing through the scientific method is incorrect. At best you can say that certain claims that are made can be tested - but not beliefs overall.

That's a silly cop-out which tries to make it a matter of 'rights and wrongs' i.e. opinions, when the claims made by the theory are a matter of fact whose credibility is subject to question by the scientific method.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The bias with which you are approaching this subject is extremely clear through your stylization of my argument against the applicability of the scientific method in economics as an "excuse". As regards reasons for doubting the method's applicability, I have given you one above. Given that it deals with a core part of the scientific method - isolating effects - I consider it a rather strong reason. I notice that your post didn't actual deal with this, but merely restated your beliefs. This would be equivalent to a pope reigning during the scientific revolution "disproving" Gallileo's ideas by merely restating the geocentric position. I invite you to tell me why my reason for being skeptical of the use of empirical evidence to support specific economic claims is flawed. Why not be scientific about the debate?

Heh, ironic much? In its rejection of empirical evidence, Libertarianism is precisely like the Popes refutation of Gallileo's ideas; it's like the Pope reasserting his own beliefs without any kind of need for scientific backing, because the beliefs are consistent with his ideological framework.

Your entire argument here rests on the idea that you can only try to disprove a theory from the ground up on microeconomic effects, not by disproving its claims on macroeconomic effects, which is a completely silly proposition.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Not believing the scientific method is generally applicable to economics seemingly offends your common sense. Given your support of scientific attitudes to debate, I'm surprised you put so much stock in your common sense. The example I presented earlier of the 10kg ball and the 100kg ball falling at different speeds offends my common sense, but I completely accept the argument. This is a part of science and academic discussion generally. We go beyond what instinctively appears to be the case and using reason and (when applicable) empirical evidence, discard our common sense and other instinctually held beliefs. To do otherwise is to be anti-intellectual.

Heh, you act as if Libertarianism is trying to be faithful or aspire to the scientific method, when it takes the stance of rejecting it completely; this puts it squarely in-line beside any theology you can think of.

It would be like Gallileo chucking in his research, saying that the universe is too complicated to understand, therefore we should not pursue further theoretical development which would (eventually) lead to Physics as a science, and we should adopt the Pope's view in spite of evidence; it's that with economics, just throwing your hands up and rejecting the idea that it can develop into a proper science over time, but even worse going backwards and rejecting existing scientific methods that are applicable as well.

Valmont

KyussBishop I think you are confusing the scientific method with positivism; the two are not one and the same.

Also, you keep stating that libertarianism rejects the scientific method completely, explicitly, etc -- you have not provided a single shred of evidence to support this assertion. Which isn't very scientific when you think about it.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Keyne's pushed economics a long long way towards becoming a proper science, and todays spiritual continuation of his original economic ideas, Post-Keynesianism, is continuing that push towards making it a proper science today.

As acceptable as it is for the social sciences to (as a practical matter) not adhere 100% to the scientific method, since they are generally not well developed enough to become a hard science yet, it is another thing altogether how Libertarianism explicitly rejects key parts of the scientific method.

Also, as much as Peter Schiff (rightly) warned of the impending economic crisis, he also (wrongly) predicated massive hyperinflation in the wake of quantative easing, which is one of the big failed predictions of Austrian economics right now; Austrian economics is a good predictor of the lead up to a crisis, but less of a good one on the effects after, which why is why its business cycle theory is considered outdated now.
While Schiff did warn of the coming crisis, Steve Keen (Post Keynesian) is one of the few people who actually attempted to model it and specifically predict its arrival, with some accuracy.

You are completely right though, of the exclusionary nature of current mainstream economics and its flaws, and the need to encourage wider discussion of economics (including Austrian economics), but there is much further development to be done on economic theory and rejection of (even aspiration to) the scientific method, significantly curtails Austrian economists credibility (it still has lots to add, but that's a pretty big barrier).

With all there is wrong about mainstream/neoclassical economics, using it as justification for rejecting the scientific method, is using bad science as an excuse for rejection science overall; like rejecting all of Physics because someone cooked up an illusory perpetual motion device and conned the world with it.

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

KyussBishop I think you are confusing the scientific method with positivism; the two are not one and the same.

Also, you keep stating that libertarianism rejects the scientific method completely, explicitly, etc -- you have not provided a single shred of evidence to support this assertion. Which isn't very scientific when you think about it.

I'm using the scientific method as a standard to judge the social sciences and what they should aspire to; Libertarianism stands apart in its deliberate rejection of the scientific method, which curtails its credibility, whereas other social sciences that still aspire to the scientific method are more credible.

Praxeology, the underpinnings of much of Libertarianism, rejects the scientific method.