All human action is necessarily rational. Yes or No

Post Reply New Topic

I see Austrians show data almost all the time. Not as much as a Keynesian because they are inductive.

Austrianism is not Creationism, even Creationism (or its forerunner), in its heyday was inductive (of course that was 4-5 thousand years ago).

Brains contain billions of cells, and if one single cell of them is broken the chance for miscalculations is already given.
I might expect that even our dna doesn't provide the code for a brain without mistakes.
The sillier a person is, the less his brain can calculate too complex questions, therefore he makes mistakes too, out of the reason, that his brain can't relate the parameters exact enough. Only in a perfect brain each thought is totally rational and without mistakes to 100%.

And people who post on WP.net under the moniker JacobVirgil. Friedrich Hayek did get the Nobel Prize in economics and the theories on marginal utility by Menger, von Wieser's theories on opportunity cost, plus criticisms of Marxian economics by Böhm-Bawerk and Menger have all been absorbed into mainstream economics, so at this point you are painting very large amounts of economic thinkers as "not empirical". Of course, as I pointed out in a recent post, Both Thomas Kuhn and Michael Polanyi argued that science is not entirely an empirical discipline due to the subjective experiences by each scientist. After all, if there is such a thing as "empirical evidence" how can multiple scientists reach multiple conclusions from the same data?

I'm hardly an Austrian school economist, however I am open-minded enough to realize that some of its theories have credence. Much like if you were to evaluate Keynes based on Japan, you would have to come to the conclusion that they've tried every Keynesian trick in the book to stimulate growth and none of them have worked. However, this is not carte blanche to dismiss the entirety of Keynes work as "utterly debunked".

There is also a matter of what should be viewed as "evidence", the Nobel Prize awarded to Hayek for instance, must be seen as evidence of his contribution to economic sciences, and thus one can infer that the evaluation committee and other economists found the work resulting to satisfy scientific criteria. This of course does not mean that the entire school of Austria economics is correct, however it does sow enough of a seed to pull into question your baseless assertion that it is "totally debunked".

Rationality is subjective. If one asks if something is rational, they are relying on an opinion to "ascertain" whether or not it is rational to do that something. When someone (like Dr. Phil) claims someone is behaving in an irrational manner, that is only his opinion. Sure, it may be an opinion shared by many, but it is still not objective. A serial killer who selects his victims based on some system, feels it is perfectly rational to commit his acts (be it for luck, revenge, or whatever), whereas many people in society feel it is not and such crimes defy reason.

This is of course true, but in his first post he defined rational as the natural programing of humans: in the interest of the most possible satisfaction of one person or at least what one person expects to give satisfaction before it is done (if I understand him correctly).
If murder is in one or mutliple situations this target for the achievement of satisfaction this can of course also be applied on murder, just as on sexuality or food.

There does however seem to be a window open to criticize the reasoning process in leading from A to B even under his definition. For instance, if one's goal is to become a surgeon, would it be reasonable or rational to come to the conclusion that the best way to achieve that is to kidnap hookers and practice?

Heh - As far as I have observed the majority of people tend to follow The Law of the Infinite Cornucopia.