Re: Misleading Economic Indicators ...

Dear Luke Rondinaro, 

I find the metaphor of the "mirror" (when you say:
"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")
very misleading. A misleading metaphor that I fear
even more than the misleading indicators we started
talking about.

I do not believe in "real principle behind" an item of
language, if you mean by that something that is not a
result of our mental activity.

I would enjoy a friendly discussion about this crucial
topic. 

Best regards,
Francesco Ranci



--- Luke Rondinaro <larondin@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.>
> 
> 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


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com