Re: Misleading Economic Indicators ...

<The not so clear sentence about "effects of effects"

refers to the dominant view, according to S., not to

his own view. I think you know better than me what he

means. My remarks was just a matter of style.>

Of course. You’re right; the sentence refers, not to Shostak’s own view, but to the dominant one.  The reason I referred to “his ‘factors’, etc.” and “his distinction ...” was to help differentiate, categorize, (and ultimately emphasize) the way Shostak was using terminology as opposed to the manner in which others would talk about this topic.

To get at the underlying epistemology and {symbolic} logical format of this sentence, I had to use some means to distinguish between the way Shostak was talking about this matter and the way that other people (economist/financial analysts, and so on) talk about it. To my own mis-conception, I used the word “his” for such a purpose.  There were probably other ways I could have achieved my aim here; I didn’t, thinking that “his” would suffice to clarify my distinction.

For anyone else (besides myself) who has some understanding of Classical Logic or Symbolic/Modal logic on this list (either a regular or someone looking in on WSN), can you think of any other way I could have clarified my distinction about Shostak’s use of these terms [+ his explanation of them} and the more popular usage? ... (I may in fact be forgetting something here in terms of my own attempt to explain this matter; hence, any help would be appreciated)

<Everything can be considered as "cause", as well as

"effect" of something else, but not at the same time.

"Rain", for example, is a cause puddles, as well as an

effect of storms. But you would not say that a pond is

an effect of an effect of a storm.>

Certainly not “at the same” and in the same respect. But as to just “at the same time”, there is a kind of causality (direct causality, as I call it) that does occur at the same time (or contemporaneously) with its effects.  Thus, we have the Efficient, Primary, Formal, Material, Exemplary, and Final causes of Thomistic-Scholastic Ontology.  We may have a different set of words used to explain this phenomena in modern thought (outside of causation terminology), but I expect even we would not ultimately deny the existence of this phenomena and these intellectual/real principles behind it.  Would we?

<Many thinkers of the past and of the present think that

laws are made of cause and effect relationships. I

disagree on this point. Causes and effects are called

in to preserve laws.>

I would respond by saying this. Laws are not “made” of cause and effect relationships.  Rather, “causes” and “effects” (and their corresponding real source principles) point towards important aspects of “laws” (and the real principles behind them).  The terms we use and the intellectual formulations we make roughly “mirror” the realities we are talking about, but they are not the realities themselves.

<Does economics assume that "men go for money" ? That

does not suffice in itself to explain "business

cycles" (and many other things, by the way). As far as

I know, tne basic paradigm about business cycles is to

be found in Paul Lafargue's pamphlet, "The Right to Be

Lazy".>

No problem here!  Still, if we end up denying that people naturally “go for money”, “go [in] for” trade, and for getting other stuff that they don’t have right there and then at a particular time and place, and we set this up as being an entirely ‘learned’ response, then aren’t we saying that economics is nothing more than social engineering & technology?  By necessity, must we at some point and some level of analysis posit a socio-behavioral, social psychological, (psycho-historical, and ultimately – sociobiological – substrate to business cycles and [human] economic activity? 

What do you think? I look forward to your response.  Best!

Luke R.

  francesco ranci <francescoranci@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The not so clear sentence about "effects of effects"
> refers to the dominant view, according to S., not to
> his own view. I think you know better than me what he
> means. My remarks was just a matter of style.
>
> Everything can be considered as "cause", as well as
> "effect" of something else, but not at the same time.
> "Rain", for evampe, is a cause poddles, as well as an
> effect of storms. But you would not say that a pond is
> an effect of an effect of a storm.
>
> Something becomes "cause", or "effect", of something
> else, by virtue of a specific chain of reasoning
> (different chains, in the two cases).
>
> First you have a paradigm (like "I WALK TO THE BREAD
> STORE")
> Then you have a difference: ("I FELL IN A PODDLE")
> So you can ask yourself how this could happen and try
> an explanation (i.e. consider the event as an effect
> of a cause)
> All this chain of reasoning does not arise as long as
> you get to the breadstore safe and do not need to
> question your paradigm about it.
>
> Many thinkers of the past and of the present think tha
> laws are made of cause and effect relationships. I
> disagree on this point. Causes and effects are called
> in to preserve laws. They may or may not be laws
> (paradigms, frames, terms of reference, schemes,
> whatever you may want to call them).
>
> Does economics assume that "men go for money" ? That
> does not suffice in itself to explain "business
> cycles" (and many other things, by the way). As far as
> I know, tne basic paradigm about business cycles is to
> be found in Paul Lafargue's pamphlet, "The Right to Be
> Lazy".

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup