Those Brights
Watching an atheist attempting to do metaphysics is like watching someone who denies the existence of water attempting to swim.
Libertarians, My Libertarians!
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas -- unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Ok, whatever. If you continue to define theological and metaphysical concepts in a way that would leave any rank-and-file believer staring at you like a deer in headlights, then I guess you'll never understand why the "new atheists" have a chip on their shoulder about God and religion. Or worse yet, why they're right.
ReplyDelete"If you continue to define theological and metaphysical concepts in a way that would leave any rank-and-file believer staring at you like a deer in headlights..."
ReplyDeleteDo you have any idea how stupid this complaint is? It is though you critiqued Erdos's understanding of higher math by complaining that 7th-grade algebra students don't get what he is saying.
"then I guess you'll never understand why the "new atheists" have a chip on their shoulder about God and religion."
Oh, I understand fine. It is because they are massively ignorant and filled with self-love.
"Do you have any idea how stupid this complaint is? It is though you critiqued Erdos's understanding of higher math by complaining that 7th-grade algebra students don't get what he is saying."
ReplyDeleteBut Gene, that is the same complaint you have of using praxeological definitions in economics.
I agree it is a stupid one.
Avram:
ReplyDelete1) I have no objection to using praxeology in economics. I'm not sure what you mean by adding "definitions."
2) If I did have such a complaint, which I don't, it would not be the same as what I am saying here anyway!
1) I am refering to our exchange in a different topic on this blog here:
ReplyDelete"But it stands to reason that if you use the broader definition of economic activity, and not the more narrow one, that in the end you will draw very different conclusions."
Only if you mistake your definition for reality!
Look, Avram, when someone says "The economy is in a recession" it would be foolish to reply, "No it isn't -- people are still economizing full time!"
And when we talk about whether or not stimulus might work, that is the kind of situation at which we are looking. The praxeological definition is not the appropriate definition to use in the case of a downturn, because the very concept of "downturn" is meaningless under that definition."
2) Correct. I misunderstood "rank and file believer" in Watoosh's original reply to be "rank and file non-believer." The way it actually is, the situation is not equivalent. Apologies.
OK, Avram, there I was talking about *a* particular definition being inappropriate for *a* particular situation. It was no general objection to using praxeology.
ReplyDelete