tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046071861494986299.post7002863173897608944..comments2023-08-26T05:08:54.898-07:00Comments on Magic, maths and money: The rational man, the average man and the replacement of deliberation by willTim Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06952723922503939504noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046071861494986299.post-83213870112796514792013-12-04T05:11:48.972-08:002013-12-04T05:11:48.972-08:00I enjoy reading your posts, both because and despi...I enjoy reading your posts, both because and despite how much ground you cover. <br /><br />I don't know why causal determinism is so seductive, and why we (on average, so to speak) are so quick to embrace logic that takes away our ability to act arbitrarily. Economics would be so much more fun, and useful, if less time was spent analyzing past relationships, and more time dreaming and imagining some arbitrarily improved future economy. <br /><br />In that respect, I appreciate the way you walk through the history of an idea and reflect on both the successes and the flaws that underpin how we understand the idea today. So much more engaging than asserting by the authority of past greatness that an idea is the truth.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15136541075745913165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046071861494986299.post-12161766606163867282013-12-03T07:59:34.499-08:002013-12-03T07:59:34.499-08:00On the semantic level, the entomology of ethics is...On the semantic level, the entomology of ethics is from the Greek for 'habit' while pragma is the Greek for 'practice'. Both Virtue (Aristotelian) ethics and Pragmatism are rooted in practice rather than theory. <br /><br />Virtue Ethics and Pragmatism are concerned simultaneously with means and ends (i.e. ends never justify means) <br /><br />Both approaches place emphasis on deliberation (i.e. society agrees what is 'good', it is not fixed externally).<br /><br />The argument that morality is 'self evident' is maybe Virtuous/Pragmatic, in that e.g. MacIntyre or a Pragmatist might argue people generally know what is right or wrong without having to have a theory about it.<br /><br />That you believe there are things that are 'really real' is fine, Ockham would have argued that God is really real, but he was also a Nominalist.<br /><br />this stuff is really slippery and I am not an expert.Tim Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06952723922503939504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046071861494986299.post-35663918195855854682013-12-03T05:46:57.172-08:002013-12-03T05:46:57.172-08:00Thanks, Tim.
Another question I had was about Vi...Thanks, Tim. <br /><br />Another question I had was about Virtue Ethics & Pragmatism which relates to the first para of your reply. I can't really get see how these two marry up. <br /><br />Anyway, that'll probably take you too far from the theme of this post. You mention Hume's passion Vs reason. I keep coming back to that too. Although our thinking is probably very far apart on it. I'm a Freud fan, so his explanation of 'passion' and how that has created the psychological & social structures in which we exist greatly influences my view. I guess in part (although I'm still conflicted) my Freudianism pushes me towards Realism over Pragmatism at the moment - I believe there are structures & energies underlying our perceptions of reality that are "really real".<br /><br />Morality in practical terms is still tricky, though. Freud's conclusion, as far as day-to-day life goes, was simply that morality is 'self-evident'. Which is not hugely helpful. <br /><br />MBGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18404729484594219550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046071861494986299.post-84166362987132138252013-12-03T03:45:43.881-08:002013-12-03T03:45:43.881-08:00I heard about Pragmatism through a comment Donald ...I heard about Pragmatism through a comment Donald MacKenzie made to me, almost in passing. The basic issue was how to incorporate ethics into 'science', and this can be achieved with Pragmatism. If you are a Realist in ethics there is an association with divine promulgation, this is difficult for me as an atheist. Roger Penrose is the leading Scientific Realist in the UK (IMHO) and he is agnostic/theistic.<br /><br />More practically, Realism expects science to 'converge' on the Truth, I think this is untenable in a financial context. I think finance is scientifically important in providing stress tests to theories of the philosophy of science. The canonical example is the pre 1987 assessment of Black-Scholes as the most successful equation in finance (if not economics) [Stephen Ross, 1987, in "Finance" the Palgrave Dictionary of Economics]. The markets converged to the scientific theory, which was diverging from market reality.<br /><br />What I am interested in is how science can respond to situations governed by radical uncertainty and non-ergodic systems. I am not convinced Scientific Realism can accomplish this. I take a Pragmatic approach because of its denial that the scientist can be an objective observer and the consequential emphasis that is placed on problems of uncertainty.Tim Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06952723922503939504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046071861494986299.post-18192801706798633772013-12-03T03:24:19.837-08:002013-12-03T03:24:19.837-08:00One of the questions I had after reading your pape...One of the questions I had after reading your paper on Reciprocity in Financial Economics is why you chose Pragmatism instead of Scientific Realism? Do you think you're heading that way, now?MBGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18404729484594219550noreply@blogger.com