Please don’t be put off by the title, as this author is only premising what he has to state on facts about political economy, as he gathers many may be interested in. He’s simply using the ‘Black Box’ of ergodicity as an analogy of what economic scientists do not yet know about economic theories and facts, over the period from its modern mode of institutionalization/institutionalism, beginning in the later 19th century to today. Many have asked about the social sciences term, ‘methodological individualism’, i.e., ‘the rational choice theory’, i.e., MI and verses MH(methodological holism), Schumpeter’s original idea, stated in 1908, yet published then only in German. This author was unaware, until more recently, of his terminology, even though he’d read much of Schumpeter, yet now realizes it is the idea of micro-economics having methodological precedence over macro-economics. This author long ago had taken the macro side of economic explanations, and below he’ll loosely compare MI and MH, and explain why he, and most heterodox post-Keynesian economists, choose the macro over the micro, which should answer your questions, or at least, lead in the direction of further investigation. It’s all about logic and extended logics, which are really a priori epistemic, but must be interpreted ontologically__Also…(as a note; This author only accepts subjectivity[emotions] as no more than the mental state of personally chosen, abstracted objective senses, connected to one’s natural instinctual energy, and often quite exaggerated, i.e., the author is personally an analytic mathematical logician, and believes logic without math is invalid__at the least, valid logical syllogisms must contain mathematical implications, for sound validity__This author takes the non-Aristotelian logic positions, as the more rational route for modern truth systems)…
History has many blind spots, but none so great as exists in political economic science, or the author should say, the non-science of political economics. Let it be stated right from the start; ‘methodological individualism’, or ‘rational choice theory’ fails to scientifically produce any viable logical syllogistic conclusions, due to the facts not existing in epistemic individualism(the individual must look out, as well as in, for the total truth)__unless the whole is also considered in the initial premises(It's the old Plato-Aristotle battle of universals and particulars_not much has changed). This theory has a long history of claiming more than is even possible of an epistemic agent of rational choices, and due to more than any other factor, of ignoring ‘irrational choice theory’, ‘uncertainty’ and the many mathematical statistical unknowns of and in the social sciences domain, especially as logically relates to the greater aggregates of outside influences(which simultaneously exist) of other and most often opposing nations of epistemic and ontological competitors, as whole states and aggregates of greater magnitude states, of actions upon not only one’s own ontic nation’s facts, but every epistemic individual agent’s facts as well. In logic theories of the above, the greater aggregates of outside states rational and irrational epistemic and ontic actions, can obviously over-whelm any epistemic rational choice actions of the primary state, as she is simply mathematically outnumbered and out-powered by said ontic actions and outside epistemic intelligences.
The second reason is the ‘Black Box’ self-blindness of not seeing the building of other nation’s long term goals of epistemic and ontic action desires and ambitions, mixed with epistemic and ontic ‘habitus’, such as socialism in Russia from 1917 on, and communism in China from Mao’s revolution on, and how this would truly play back into our system of epistemic individualism, liberal ideals, market sustainability, or whatever__over time... Just as an obvious example, America spent some 90 years railing against Russian socialism, and some 60+ years railing against Chinese communism, yet without ever penning hardly a word about an accidental, or possibly planned by them, of re-entering the capitalist system, after being out of the capitalist system all these years__Why?(and the imbalances created_beyond belief) This is the greatest lack of personal and national insight an otherwise intelligent nation has almost ever made, since the results have been so devastating, when one truly figures the historical debts and real numbers leading to and creating Sept ‘08. How many years did America spend in the blind Arrow-Debreu ‘Black Box’ of false mathematical models?
Few realize, the only long term true political economic intelligence, we as people and nations possess, is probable possibilities of guaranteed uncertainties, no matter how many mathematical models we build. Therefore, the only risk solution is a proper law structure to guard against uncertain risk, but America chose, over the last forty years, to de-regulate our Keynesian risk protection system of laws. So, even though the outside world’s uncertain irrationalisms can easily overwhelm any nation, America did this one to herself, thus the questions become__How and Why…? Then, we must trace the problems to the central historical political economic and social science arguments between MI and MH, or micro and macro economics of modeling methods…
On the micro side we have the the English Classical School(Smith, Pareto, etc.), the Austrian School(Schumpeter, Menger, von Mises, Hayek, etc.), and the later Chicago School(Samuelson, Arrow, Friedman, etc.) of conflated institutional or mathematical economics. On the macro side we have the Italian School(Ricardo, Sraffa, etc.), the English Non-classical School(Jevons, Marshall, Pigou, Spalding, Einzig, Robbins, Keynes, etc.), the early Chicago Institutional School(heterodox; Ely, Peirce, Veblen, etc.), and the modern heterodox economists(Galbraith, Vickers, Gelert, Dornbusch, Minsky, Davidson, Auerback, Gilbert, Skidelski, Daly, Dore, etc.). The argument goes; “Economics must be founded on individual rational choices.” Vs., “Economics must be founded in the uncertainty of rational and irrational choices and actions.” The major difference of these two models is the first is based on pseudo-specific analysis, and the second is based in general eclectic analysis only(probable and possible genericity). Jevons, Peirce and Veblen were the first to vehemently criticize the classical economic models of their day, by clearly showing the mathematical faults, uncertainties and impossibilities of Bayesian probability theory and facts, as applied to these systems. All three clearly stated probability theory(as per Huygens’ true statistical probability mechanics) in economics could only represent a general possibility probability of future actions, and never a known holistic fact, other than changes. Future knowable facts were clearly impossible in their eyes, yet the classical institutionalists ‘just knew’ they could over-come the facts__But as Sept. ‘08 has clearly and fully shown__The Mathematical Institutionalists were Wrong, Wrong, Wrong…!
And now, it’s time to rebuild the system, but not on the failed plan of a dishonest integrity of “I Know”, but on the realities of uncertain futures’ knowledge. And, uncertain futures require real margins of risk protection, and this means new, and logically sensible, financial and market laws, to govern our epistemic and ontological passions into sensible paths...
We can all have big egos forever, but ‘a logic’, it will not make. The dishonest integrity of present classical logic systems extends clear back to Aristotle’s limited system of three logic laws; identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle, and many are unaware this system of thought was really over-turned just about 1000 years ago by Ibn Sina, or Avicenna, as he’s known to the West. Ibn Sina created the first viable non-Aristotelian logic, complete with a long categories list, by extending his syllogistic system to include the logic of relations, time, quantity and quality, and clearly showing the overly limiting conditions of Aristotle’s fractious logic system(human nature requires non-identities, contradictions and included middles, of mean terms, as is evident just by realizing humans exist, holding both rational and irrational opinions and strong beliefs of, as do all nations). He was also the first to create(even by our stds.) a modern modal logic and deal with quaternions, long before Hamilton and Hilbert. Next in history to truly extend Aristotelian logic to a non-Aristotelian logic was Peirce, yet a bit tentative about completing his thoughts, while a student of only age 17 in Russia, one Vasiliev(father of paraconsistent logics), somewhat completed Peirce’s non-Aristotelian logic, and finally by 1910 naming it ‘Imaginary Logic’ after his father’s mentor and friend Lobachevsky, the inventor of non-Euclidian ‘Imaginary Geometry’(later Grassmann and Clifford also), which has been followed up on by both Russian and American militaries, thus joining logic and cognitive psychologies into viable models and methods of pragmatic actions… Had these total above events been heeded, by the West’s academic economists, and other elite pinheads, over the last 150 years, this author feels we’d not needed end in the Sept. ’08 crash. We may have had sense enough to avoid it. We now must pick up the pieces, and let us hope the academic community finally realizes Aristotle is just a very limited logic system, and the greatly extended non-Aristotelian logics of the last 150 years, from Boole, De Morgan, Jevons, Clifford, Schroder, Peirce, Vasiliev, Veblen, Keynes, Herbrand, Noether, and Tarski to Nozawa, Zalamea, Lefebvre, Finn, Hanna, Davidson and Pollock, etc., must be listened to…
Sandia National Laboratories Peircean Induction Graphic
John Pollock __ The Mystery Link _ Embodied Perception
Bourdieu’s Three Relations of Knowledge Claims
The Economic Mind of Charles Sanders Peirce, by James R. Wible
Complete Economics, Physics, Philosophy Image Library(click graphics for larger image)...
No comments:
Post a Comment