God and Economics
This post discusses one of Ludwig von Mises’s key insights which formed the basis for the differentiating factor of the Austrian school of economics. It’s an interesting article, and I couldn’t help but notice many parallels between Mises’s arguments and those of theists.
I found it particularly interesting that Karl Popper was referenced. I’ve found his “Black Swan” criticism of certainty within deductive empiricism to be a helpful illustration of how “random hypothesis” procedures can’t be transferred to explorations about morality, logic and other universal concepts. One can never reach a useful theory through only trial and error; one must begin with some reasonable a priori principles. This line of reasoning can be employed to show the weaknesses of naturalistic explanations of uniquely human traits; nature has only trial and error mechanisms, and thus the complexity and harmony of human intelligence, aesthetic appreciation and morality aren’t explained by it.
The recent subprime loan crisis in the U.S. provides an interesting economic anecdote for this principal. Some of the brightest mathematical minds of our day were employed by investment banks to model behaviors of borrowers, and their models showed that a strong return with an acceptable amount of risk could be reached via certain “packaged” combinations of high quality and low quality loans. These models were pimp-slapped by reality when defaults on loans reached levels far outside of the historical norms used as a given, and the economic carnage is expected to reach into trillions of dollars.
Here’s hoping we can find a way to limit the intellectual carnage caused by similar ill-advised confidence in empiricism in theistic/atheistic discussions.
April 28, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The article you reference is blatantly in error.
Popper felt we need metaphysics. However, he felt we could eventually judge the metaphysics by how well it yield falsifiable theories.
You almost seem to be arguing this yourself above, when you say we need reasonable a priori principles. That seems fine, but those principles could be in error.
Eucleadian math is a good example of something that seemed a priori and true, yet now turns out to be not exactly correct for describing the world.
Check this out:
http://www.unav.es/cryf/theethicalrootsofkarlpopper.html
Follow it up with this:
http://www.the-rathouse.com/RC_PopperPaper.html
April 28, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Hey Matt,
First, thanks for the awesome links, those were very interesting readings.
Secondarily, I’m not seeing how the article to which I linked spoke to metaphysics (unless you’re equating metaphysics with a priori principles, which I would find unclear).