September 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  
Blog powered by Typepad

« Review of The Great Persuasion and other recent essays and interviews | Main | New MR University Course on the Great Economists »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This is a crucial point -- *varied* reiteration is crucial to productive discussion across rival paradigms, understandings and explanatory visions -- a point made in various ways by the philosopher of argument and explanation Larry Wright.

So the question is -- why *don't* 'Austrian economists' take this point to heart?

Why do they almost never use alternative words and expressions for the 5 or 6 different senses of "subjectivist" or "subjectivism"?

And this statement could apply to a large cluster of fixed language ticks in the Austrian literature, eg "methology", "value", "apriori", "equilibrium", etc.

You can go chapter and verse through all of the rubber stamped and stereo-typed dead metaphors that Austrian's cling to -- as if it is impossible for them to use fresh language or even alternative words for arguments cast in linguistic stone by Mises or Rothbard.

The other side of this is that when people use the same stagnant, rubber stamped and ossified language, they stop thinking, they don't look at the full range of issues involves or different distinctions hidden by fixed, pat and thoughtless word repetition.

If you want people to get the significance of Austrian economics explain the 5 or 6 conceptually different explanatory roles Austrians us the single word "subjective" to explicate.

I don't understand how you can say that, Greg.

Think also of what Coyne and Leeson done without, you know, block quotes from Mises. Look at what Review of Austrian Economics and Advances in Austrian Economics have published. It just *ain't* a lot of block quotes from Mises. Think of the sort of solid empirical macro that both Andy Young and Bob Mulligan have published. Bob published "A Fractal Comparison of Real and Austrian Business Cycle Models" in Physica A. Talk about " alternative words and expressions"! Pete has been the key figure in creating a generation of rigorous applied economists who look out the window and talk about the world. And so on and so on. Where is this ossified Austrianism you speak of? I just don't see how to square the work that is being done today with the curious claim that Austrian economics is somehow mired in "fixed, pat and thoughtless word repetition."

Yes, this quote is from Herbert Spencer. Frank Knight quoted that in his article "Professor Hayek and the Theory of Investment":

Since the publication of the Economic Essays in Honour of Gustav Cassel and of Professor Hlayek's article, there has appeared in Economica an article of my own entitled " Capital, Time, and the Interest Rate " covering some of the same ground as the foregoing. If there is for some readers some repetition, no one is under compulsion to read both articles; and I am also reminded of the apology for repetition with which Herbert Spencer concluded the Preface to his Data of Ethics: "Only by varied iteration can alien conceptions be forced on reluctant minds."

"It Takes Varied Reiterations to Force Alien Concepts Upon Reluctant Minds"

I don't think that would hold up well in any kind of substantive research. Public relations has done the most extensive research in what it takes to persuade people to change their minds and that thought isn't any where near the top of the list.

There may be some post hoc fallacy going on there, too. Repeated iterations over time may mean nothing more than that you kept going until you reached a less stubborn audience.

Young people and older people going through a major crisis are more likely to change their minds, but a large segment of the population will not change their minds under any circumstances. You just have to wait until a new generation arrives that is willing to consider your position honestly.

It's from the last paragraph of his preface to The Data of Ethics:

The relations of this work to works preceding it in the series, are such as to involve frequent reference. Containing, as it does, the outcome of principles set forth in each of them, I have found it impracticable to dispense with re-statements of those principles. Further, the presentation of them in their relations to different ethical theories, has made it needful, in every case, briefly to remind the reader what they are, and how they are derived. Hence an amount of repetition which to some will probably appear tedious. I do not, however, much regret this almost unavoidable result; for only by varied iteration can alien conceptions be forced on reluctant minds.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books