Comments (12)

• Michael Hartl

  Given that the Austrian school is sometimes unfairly dismissed as "crank economics", I'd suggest distancing yourself from actual crank science. These sorts of publications have a long and (ig)noble history, especially when it comes to attacking Einstein's relativity. Though Galilean Electrodynamics and its ilk would make for some interesting problems in a freshman relativity course (i.e., "find the error in..."), their use doesn't extend much beyond that. (This happens to be one of my areas of expertise; I taught freshman physics, including relativity, at Caltech for five years. I'd be thrilled to find an actual error in relativity, by the way; there's a committee in Sweden that would likely contact me shortly thereafter.)

  Published: December 16, 2008 7:58 PM

• Dan Mahoney

  Michael Hartl:

  A bit off topic, but I'm curious as to your thoughts on Hoppe's criticisms of general relativity and quantum mechanics (admittedly from a philosophical/foundational basis, as opposed to a mathematical/technical basis).

  Published: December 16, 2008 8:21 PM

• Inquisitor

  Could you quote Hoppe's attack on it? Neither Mises nor Hoppe dismiss it so far as I can recall, though in Mises's case he did dismiss certain interpretations of it (I wonder what his brother thought on the matter.)

  Published: December 17, 2008 1:28 AM

• TokyoTom

  This is interesting, Stephan; thanks.

  I agree with Beckmann that coal poses health threats (in mining, transporting, burning and sludge disposal) magnitudes greater than does nuclear. While enviro opposition to nuclear has had regrettable consequences, such opposition is understandable given the close intertwining of the nuclear power business with the state - which continues to provide caps on liability, and damages the industry by preventing preporcessing and interfering in waste disposal.

  As for Dr. Robinson, he is worthy of note chiefly in his role in providing the vehicle for a deliberately deceptive petition project regarding climate change:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

  Published: December 17, 2008 3:04 AM

• Dan Mahoney

  Inquisitor:

  Unfortunately my books are all in boxes (I'm in the middle of a move), but Hoppe's critique is essentially, if one necessarily presupposes the validity of concepts like causality or Euclidean geometry, then it cannot be said that fields of modern physics (which also presuppose these concepts) have falsified them (as one often hears said of quantum mechanics and general relativity).

  Stephan, can you dig up any quotes?

  Published: December 17, 2008 7:07 AM

• Stephan Kinsella

  As I discuss in More Palmer Hoppe Distortions, on The Palmer Periscope:

  ***

  As for geometry and optics, it seems Palmer did not hear Hoppe clearly.  I do not believe he stated "that Ludwig von Mises had laid the foundation not only for economics, but for ethics, geometry, and optics". Rather, as shown in On Praxeology and the Praxeological Foundation of Epistemology (text at notes 60-62, and note 62; from Economic Science and the Austrian Method)), which references Lorenzen, Dingler, Karnbartel, et al., regarding an entire body of "protophysics" --

  Further, the old rationalist claims that geometry, that is, Euclidean geometry is a priori and yet incorporates empirical knowledge about space becomes supported, too, in view of our insight into the praxeological constraints on knowledge. Since the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries and in particular since Einstein's relativistic theory of gravitation, the prevailing position regarding geometry is once again empiricist and formalist. It conceives of geometry as either being part of empirical, aposteriori physics, or as being empirically meaningless formalisms. Yet that geometry is either mere play, or forever subject to empirical testing seems to be irreconcilable with the fact that Euclidean geometry is the foundation of engineering and construction, and that nobody there ever thinks of such propositions as only hypothetically true. [61] Recognizing knowledge as praxeologically constrained explains why the empiricist-formalist view is incorrect and why the empirical success of Euclidean geometry is no mere accident. Spatial knowledge is also included in the meaning of action. Action is the employment of a physical body in space. Without acting there could be no knowledge of spatial relations, and no measurement. Measuring is relating something to a standard. Without standards, there is no measurement; and there is no measurement, then, which could ever falsify the standard. Evidently, the ultimate standard must be provided by the norms underlying the construction of bodily movements in space and the construction of measurement instruments by means of one's body and in accordance with the principles of spatial constructions embodied in it. Euclidean geometry, as again Paul Lorenzen in particular has explained, is no more and no less than the reconstruction of the ideal norms underlying our construction of such homogeneous basic forms as points, lines, planes and distances, which are in a more or less perfect but always perfectible way incorporated or realized in even our most primitive instruments of spatial measurements such as a measuring rod. Naturally, these norms and normative implications cannot be falsified by the result of any empirical measurement. On the contrary, their cognitive validity is substantiated by the fact that it is they which make physical measurements in space possible. Any actual measurement must already presuppose the validity of the norms leading to the construction of one's measurement standards. It is in this sense that geometry is an a priori science; and that it must simultaneously be regarded as an empirically meaningful discipline, because it is not only the very precondition for any empirical spatial description, it is also the precondition for any active orientation in space. [62]

  62. On the aprioristic character of Euclidean geometry see Lorenzen, Methodisches Denhen, chapters 8 and 9; idem, Normative Logic and Ethics, chapter 5; H. Dingler, Die Grundlagen der Geometrie (Stuttgart: Enke, 1933); on Euclidean geometry as a necessary presupposition of objective, i.e., intersubjectively communicable, measurements and in particular of any empirical verification of non-Euclidean geometries (after all, the lenses of the telescopes which one uses to confirm Einstein's theory regarding the non-Euclidean structure of physical space must themselves be constructed according to Euclidean principles) see Karnbartel, Erfahrung und Struktur, pp. 132-33; P. Janich, Die Protophysik der Zeit (Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut, 1969), pp. 45-50; idem, "Eindeutigkeit, Konsistenz und methodische Ordnung," in F. Karnbartel and J. Mittelstrass, eds., Zum normativen Fundament der Wissenschaft.

  Following the lead of Hugo Dingler, Paul Lorenzen and other members of the so-called Erlangen school have worked out a system of protophysics , which contains all aprioristic presuppositions of empiriical physics, including, apart from geometry, also chronometry and hytometry (i.e., classical mechanics without gravitation, or "rational" mechanics). "Geometry, chronometry and hytometry are a-priori theories which make empirical measurements of space, time and materia 'possible'.They have to be established before physics in the modern sense of fields of forces, can begin. Therefore, I should like to call these disciplines by a common name: protophysics." Lorenzen, Normative Logic and Ethics, p. 60.

  So Palmer is wrong. Hoppe did not claim Mises "laid the foundation not only for economics, but for ethics, geometry, and optics"; and does Palmer want to relegate to the dustheep in a wave of the hand thinkers like Lorenzen et al.?! This is a standard branch of apriori reasoning. Palmer may not agree with it, but so what?

  Published: December 17, 2008 12:25 PM

• Dan Mahoney

  One of the chapters in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism has an outstanding discussion of causality as a necessary presupposition for carrying out experiments (in the sense of being able to characterize the outcomes as "testing" a physical theory), not something that is itself only empirically true.

  Published: December 17, 2008 12:51 PM

• Dan Mahoney

  Tom Palmer is clearly suffering from dementia, and not the kind brought on by old age.

  Published: December 17, 2008 12:55 PM

• Michael Hartl

  Regarding Hoppe's position on geometry: the world is Euclidean to high accuracy, but there are measurable deviations from Euclidean geometry at high speeds and in high gravitational fields. Our intuition is Euclidean because humans evolved deep in the Newtonian/Euclidean realm of physics, but our untrained intuition is wrong outside of that realm.

  The claim that engineering and even measurement itself presuppose Euclidean geometry is false. The meter is defined in terms of light travel time (a meter is the distance light travels in vacuum in 1/299792458 s), with no reference to rigid bodies or any other Euclidean constructs. And an engineered system many of us use every day depends crucially on non-Euclidean effects: without the time dilation corrections from special and general relativity, the Global Positioning System would be useless within a day. (For more information on these and related issues, I recommend Spacetime Physics by Taylor & Wheeler.)

  There is no fundamental barrier to economists doing physics, but without training they will be as bad at physics as the typical physicist is at economics—and, having seen many physicists try to do economics, I can testify that that is very bad indeed.

  Published: December 18, 2008 9:33 PM

• Dan Mahoney

  Michael Hartl:

  You mentioned you taught at Caltech? I went there as an undergrad (MIT for grad school), so I assure you I understand the underlying technical mathematics of modern physics. These are irrelevant to Hoppe's point, which I'm afraid you didn't grasp (perhaps you are relying on my rather sketchy synopsis, rather than Hoppe's original writings?).

  Published: December 19, 2008 7:20 AM

• Michael Hartl

  @Dan: yes, I was relying on your summary. I am otherwise unfamiliar with Hoppe's views on physics.

  Published: December 21, 2008 11:43 PM

• Kevin Delgadillo

  Interesting discussion -- Dan Mahoney -- been looking for you for years (Caltech undergrad roomie) -- send me an email - kevin@kevcat.com

  Published: April 29, 2009 11:46 AM