Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Concrete-boundedness and empiricism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I think concrete-"bounded" means when someone rejects concepts and abstractions (to more or less of a degree).

 

I think empiricism is holding that the base of knowledge can come from observation only.

 

 

Of course some empiricists ended up complete skeptics and the school of philosophers labelled as empiricists may have strayed far beyond simply what the term empiricism implies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Empiricism' means sensory data. A good example is that we see the spectral lines change and measure accordingly; we do not see electrons. Therefore, QM has always been clear that its work is highly instrumental in the manner somewhat defined by Mach.

 

Concrete, I suppose, is a metaphor that, in this case, assumes that electrons really exist.

 

'Boundaries' define the limit of the particular observation. This stipulation is somewhat necessary in so far as many cartesian functions will eventually cross either/or the x and y axes, therefore giving a singularity, or nonsense.

 

Perhaps the best examples are both Relativities: infinite mass at infinite speed when time stops,, zero gravity, infinite gravity (black holes)....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the concrete-bound mentality examples given in ITOE was along the lines of outlining the issues that arise with regard to government controls within a sector of the economy. Picking price controls on rent, showing through the various studies of places such as New York, where when the price controls were imposed, led to shortages in available places to rent.

 

The concrete-bound mentality finally understands how this applies to rent control in the city of New York and then asks "What about rent control in Boston?" or What about price control of beef in the supermarket or wages employees can get paid by an employer?" as former President Jimmy Carter mandated.

 

It is a failure to be able to abstract the general principle and apply it, either across the board, or more broadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the concrete-bound mentality examples given in ITOE was along the lines of outlining the issues that arise with regard to government controls within a sector of the economy. Picking price controls on rent, showing through the various studies of places such as New York, where when the price controls were imposed, led to shortages in available places to rent.

 

The concrete-bound mentality finally understands how this applies to rent control in the city of New York and then asks "What about rent control in Boston?" or What about price control of beef in the supermarket or wages employees can get paid by an employer?" as former President Jimmy Carter mandated.

 

It is a failure to be able to abstract the general principle and apply it, either across the board, or more broadly.

You seem to be using the metaphor 'concreteness' to stand for the ability to apply an eaxmple to a larger framework. That's fine.

 

 The issue comes with the question of relevancy. In other words, how might a specific context alter the applicication of a given, concrete entity?

 

For example, if price controls on rent led to a housing shortage in NYC, how would that necessarily apply inm, say, Chicago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be using the metaphor 'concreteness' to stand for the ability to apply an eaxmple to a larger framework. That's fine.

You might want to re-read what was stated. Applying a principle across the board, rent controls in a city lead to shortages of rental units. If the factors brought up are all focused on the city of New York as the concrete example - the concrete-bound mentality is not viewing the application to a city in general, but only to the city used as in the illustration.

 The issue comes with the question of relevancy. In other words, how might a specific context alter the applicication of a given, concrete entity?

 

For example, if price controls on rent led to a housing shortage in NYC, how would that necessarily apply inm, say, Chicago?

 

By identifying the factors involved. i.e., one of the factors is: when the price of rent is lower than the cost of providing more units, the return on investment is not high enough to encourage building new rental units (in whatever city - even if it is just the city of New York, used as the concrete.)

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, if price controls on rent led to a housing shortage in NYC, how would that necessarily apply inm, say, Chicago?

The same applies to the gravity in New York versus Chicago and whether New York exists when you aren't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might want to re-read what was stated. Applying a principle across the board, rent controls in a city lead to shortages of rental units. If the factors brought up are all focused on the city of New York as the concrete example - the concrete-bound mentality is not viewing the application to a city in general, but only to the city used as in the illustration.

 

By identifying the factors involved. i.e., one of the factors is: when the price of rent is lower than the cost of providing more units, the return on investment is not high enough to encourage building new rental units (in whatever city - even if it is just the city of New York, used as the concrete.)

In science, the operative term for applying 'concreteness' is called 'ceteris paribus'.

* Rent control does not necessarily drive rents beneth production costs.

* That being said, you're assuming that the builder would not settle for a lower rate of profit.

* You're assuming knowledge of extrinsic factors that would apply even if builders would accept said lower rate of profit.

* you're assuming that city officials that imposed rent control were not aware of the owners' high rate of profit, and would failry demand less.

* you're assuming that city officials did not have an ace up their sleeve in the form of federal funds which might replace private investment money, after all.

 

So all you're left with is a small set of normative statements--not an empirical observation of the real world of economic behavior--which defeats the purpose of concreteness as such. It's as if you said that. 'concretely',that airplanes drop like rocks because, after all, they're objects under the influence of gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In science, the operative term for applying 'concreteness' is called 'ceteris paribus'.

* Rent control does not necessarily drive rents beneth production costs.

* That being said, you're assuming that the builder would not settle for a lower rate of profit.

* You're assuming knowledge of extrinsic factors that would apply even if builders would accept said lower rate of profit.

* you're assuming that city officials that imposed rent control were not aware of the owners' high rate of profit, and would failry demand less.

* you're assuming that city officials did not have an ace up their sleeve in the form of federal funds which might replace private investment money, after all.

 

So all you're left with is a small set of normative statements--not an empirical observation of the real world of economic behavior--which defeats the purpose of concreteness as such. It's as if you said that. 'concretely',that airplanes drop like rocks because, after all, they're objects under the influence of gravity.

You are missing the point here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are missing the point here.

No, i'm disagreeing with your point. You're substituting a normative statement for empirical reality.

 

In other words, you're using a first-principle argument that-- in the perfectly non-real world of a hyper-formalized model of classical economics-- a lessening of profit by rent control will automatically cause a housing shortage.

 

This, however, only a hypothese that might be tested, again, ceteris paribus. Regrettably, 'testing' would involve number-crunching, a procedure that first-principle, Austrian-based 'economics' is opposed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, i'm disagreeing with your point. You're substituting a normative statement for empirical reality.

 

In other words, you're using a first-principle argument that-- in the perfectly non-real world of a hyper-formalized model of classical economics-- a lessening of profit by rent control will automatically cause a housing shortage.

 

This, however, only a hypothese that might be tested, again, ceteris paribus. Regrettably, 'testing' would involve number-crunching, a procedure that first-principle, Austrian-based 'economics' is opposed to.

My point was, if something applies, in general, to a city, as a city - using New York City as a concrete example to illustrate your point - a concrete-bound mentality will as afterwords ask - Well, what about the city of Detroit? Does it apply to there too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was, if something applies, in general, to a city, as a city - using New York City as a concrete example to illustrate your point - a concrete-bound mentality will as afterwords ask - Well, what about the city of Detroit? Does it apply to there too?

No, a first-principle, normatively-bound mentality would apply a general rule to all particular cases and say. "i've described reality without investigating the particulars --ie Detroit vs NYC.

 

IMHO, the meaning of 'concrete' (and, again, we're only dealing with metaphors!) would mean, "Let's look into the particulars of, say , Detroit vs NYC and determine to what extent first-principle, normative statements apply".

 

In a patrallel sense, you might take gravity and say that it's a universal co-efficient that figures into the equations that describe blowing leaves, airplanes, baseballs, tumbling boulders, and planetary orbits. OTH, you would say that, concretely, the equations are different with respect to other coefficients in all particular cases.

 

Concretely, leaves behave differently than baseballs. Cooncretely, housing conditions in large cities appear to vary greatly.

 

On a philosophical plane, my position resembles that of Cartwright, "How the laws of physics lie".. Maddy "I'm a second-principle sort of gurl" and, of course, Quine: "All philosophy is that of science".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's as if you said that. 'concretely',that airplanes drop like rocks because, after all, they're objects under the influence of gravity.

No, a first-principle, normatively-bound mentality would apply a general rule to all particular cases and say. "i've described reality without investigating the particulars --ie Detroit vs NYC.

Regrettably, 'testing' would involve number-crunching, a procedure that first-principle, Austrian-based 'economics' is opposed to.

 

What are you arguing against and by what method did you come to oppose it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you arguing against and by what method did you come to oppose it?

'Concreteness' is a somewhat useless metaphor. For example, if you were to say, "leaves floating to the ground, dropping a quarter  and airplanes landing are 'concrete' examples of gravity", you'd need to disambiguate.

 

All three event-systems would have different coefficients added to the one for gravity to give a trajectory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, a first-principle, normatively-bound mentality would apply a general rule to all particular cases and say. "i've described reality without investigating the particulars --ie Detroit vs NYC.

 

IMHO, the meaning of 'concrete' (and, again, we're only dealing with metaphors!) would mean, "Let's look into the particulars of, say , Detroit vs NYC and determine to what extent first-principle, normative statements apply".

 

In a patrallel sense, you might take gravity and say that it's a universal co-efficient that figures into the equations that describe blowing leaves, airplanes, baseballs, tumbling boulders, and planetary orbits. OTH, you would say that, concretely, the equations are different with respect to other coefficients in all particular cases.

 

Concretely, leaves behave differently than baseballs. Cooncretely, housing conditions in large cities appear to vary greatly.

 

On a philosophical plane, my position resembles that of Cartwright, "How the laws of physics lie".. Maddy "I'm a second-principle sort of gurl" and, of course, Quine: "All philosophy is that of science".

You've identified concrete, in the scientific scope 'ceteris paribus'.

 

The question is addressing 'concrete-bound'. I am familiar with 'concrete-bound', not 'ceteris paribus'.

One reference I find is from OPAR, Chaper 4 on Objectivity sets the context:

The opposite of the policy of integration is exemplified by the concrete-bound mentality, to use Ayn Rand's term. This is the man who, as far as possible to a conceptual being, establishes no connections among his mental contents. To him, every issue is simply a new concrete, unrelated to what came before, to abstract principles, or to any context.

 

While you may disagree with Austrian economics regarding rent control, the fact that if you accepted it, it would apply to the concrete case built from New York, and be equally applicable to Detroit.

 

A disagreement with Austrian economics does not disqualify the example given.

 An individual that grasps the Austrian economics as it applies to New York, then asks, "What about Detroit?" is treating Detroit as a unique, unprecedented concrete, demonstrating a concrete-bound mentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've identified concrete, in the scientific scope 'ceteris paribus'.

 

The question is addressing 'concrete-bound'. I am familiar with 'concrete-bound', not 'ceteris paribus'.

One reference I find is from OPAR, Chaper 4 on Objectivity sets the context:

While you may disagree with Austrian economics regarding rent control, the fact that if you accepted it, it would apply to the concrete case built from New York, and be equally applicable to Detroit.

 

A disagreement with Austrian economics does not disqualify the example given.

 An individual that grasps the Austrian economics as it applies to New York, then asks, "What about Detroit?" is treating Detroit as a unique, unprecedented concrete, demonstrating a concrete-bound mentality.

Well, yes, of course...IFF you accept Austrain School then the Austrian theory would hold in all cases...because that's how it's written per intent.

 

But beyond my disagreement with the theory as such, you still have an issue of locality. in other words, although the truth of Austrian theory may hold in all cases, local conditions may add factors (coefficients) that would alter the outcome.

 

For example, take gravity. dropping quarters are single-factor events (systems) fastballs are double factors involving underspin that causes a rise to the plate, while blowing leaves have three: gravity, drag coefficient (parachute) and wind.

 

In sum, Austrian school assumes to speak of the comprehensive: that no local conditions would basically alter the outcome from, say, NYC to Detroit. So in this case, yes, all events are equally concrete as they can represent truth anywhere.

 

My only response is that the truth- potential of this statement is itself testable, much as one 'tests' gravity out on falling leaves. Can it alone predict where the leaf will land? 

 

 It has nothing to do with Rand's posted comment that some people refuse to connect the dots...as true as that observation  might be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 It has nothing to do with Rand's posted comment that some people refuse to connect the dots...as true as that observation  might be

As the original question had little to do with dropping quarters, the spin of a pitch or a way in which leaves resemble a parachute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the original question had little to do with dropping quarters, the spin of a pitch or a way in which leaves resemble a parachute.

My original answer was that real concreteness comes from doing science. because austrian school 'economics' is not written tio conform to hypotheses and empirical testing, it cannot ever offer concrete results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the Austrian economics construct was being used to illustrate a different point, not to argue its merits and or shortfalls. Try searching the economics section for conversations of that nature. I know enough about it to know I accept the Austrian position over the Kantian one, but not enough to defend it. I occasionally read some of the materials at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Their articles have a comment section where you can discuss it with other informed participants. They would be better qualified to address your concerns about their position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the Austrian economics construct was being used to illustrate a different point, not to argue its merits and or shortfalls. Try searching the economics section for conversations of that nature. I know enough about it to know I accept the Austrian position over the Kantian one, but not enough to defend it. I occasionally read some of the materials at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Their articles have a comment section where you can discuss it with other informed participants. They would be better qualified to address your concerns about their position.

There is no Kantian economics of which I'm aware.

 

That the Austrian School in not empirically testable is not a polemical point that I woud need to argue. Rather, it's an assertion that they voluntarily offer.

 

My only observation is that examples that are not directed by empirical research can never be considered 'concrete'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all you're left with is a small set of normative statements--not an empirical observation of the real world of economic behavior--which defeats the purpose of concreteness as such. It's as if you said that. 'concretely',that airplanes drop like rocks because, after all, they're objects under the influence of gravity.

 

No, i'm disagreeing with your point. You're substituting a normative statement for empirical reality.

 

But beyond my disagreement with the theory as such, you still have an issue of locality. in other words, although the truth of Austrian theory may hold in all cases, local conditions may add factors (coefficients) that would alter the outcome.

 

because austrian school 'economics' is not written tio conform to hypotheses and empirical testing, it cannot ever offer concrete results.

 

The irony of watching an empiricist answer the OP's question...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mistake. I meant Keynesian.

Austrian school theory relied on a 'business cycle' that was posited by a Frenchman named Bachlier in 1906. I say 'posited', btw, because his work was not based upon data.

 

As the name implies, cycle means 'bounce back' when performance, measured in prices,are low.

Keynes attacked the cyclic model from two perspectives: empirical and... mathematical/logical.

 

First. many slumps last, empirically speaking, far beyond that which would correspond to the low point(s) of a cyclic curve.

 

Next, the cycle itself is liiogical because if the downward point(s) of the cycle correspond to a level of assets which would not cover liabilities, then the firm is broke--hence, no possibility of an upswing.

 

Keynes' point is that a macro-national economy can either stay 'broke' or prime the pump with more money, to repay when productivity finally rises. But again, staying broke (austerity) does not work.

 

So defending Austrain school would involve explaining how the cycle would upsewing by itself.

 

OTH, a defense of Keynes isn't necessary. as he's simply saying that sdeficit spending is the least-bad of alternatives. In good times, btw, Keynes was for cutting spending & running a surplus, ostensibly to save for the inevitable rainy day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...