Study (Guide) Break

By -
I'm working on a study guide to Mises' Human Action. I just came across the below excerpt, and remembered why a lot of people love, and a lot of people hate, Mises:

The treatment of probability has been confused by the mathematicians. (From Chapter VI, section 2.)

Comments

  1. Anonymous10:06 AM

    Are you saying people don't like mises because he is:

    1. Too blunt?
    2. His tone is too sure and not acceptable in academia?
    3. He is wrong (in too many academic's opinion)?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy10:12 AM

    Right. Basically, "Who the heck does this economist think he is, lecturing mathematicians on probability and physicists on what the uncertainty principle 'really' means?!"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:21 AM

    Well, I can totally see them doing that...but, is he right is a more important question they should be asking.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous11:17 AM

    We must not forget that Mises' brother, Richard, was a mathematician--perhaps a little extra jab at a sibling?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous11:25 AM

    And Ludwig may have been kind to his brother. At Wikipeda, I just came across this quote about Richard by one, Aleksander Ostrowski:

    Because of his dynamic personality his occasional major blunders were somehow tolerated. One has even forgiven him his theory of probability.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more