Re: Social Science and the Problem of Is/Ought Addendum to Is

[Luke Rodinaro:] For, if both the object and the facts are “is”, then why (logically and sensibly) can’t the knowledge but around this base of content also be considered “is?”  If one arrives at this knowledge through reasoning or through further empirical tests and/or observations, does this make the preceding argument any less valid if both the objects and facts are “is?” 

 

[Mike A:]  Yes and no.  If the knowledge is created entirely from "facts", then yes, using valid reasoning, the knowledge so obtained can be considered part of what "is".  Unfortunately, this is probably never the case, so the answer is no.  All knowledge contains assertions that are assumed to be true (that is a fact), which are not actual empirical facts.  Hence all knowledge is a description of what we currently believe to be what is.  The validity of our knowledge is demonstrated through "use tests".  That is, the more accurately the knowledge can explain and predict empirial observations, the more valid that knowledge is.  The emprical observation that so much of our technology "works" as predicted demonstrates a high degree of validity of the knowledge used to create it.  The failure of most economists to predict the current recession shows the relative invalidity of current economic knowledge.

 

Mike Alexander,  author of
Stock Cycles: Why stocks won't beat money markets over the next 20 years.
http://www.net-link.net/~malexan/STOCK_CYCLES.htm