The Failure of Empiricism

Summary

This video delves into empiricism, an epistemic position that knowledge must be verifiable by experience, and its implications for economic theories. It critiques empiricism's self-defeating nature, as it cannot be empirically proven or disproven, and discusses the Austrian School's rationalist approach to economics. The video also explores the a priori knowledge of language and action, refuting empiricism's applicability to understanding human behavior and economic systems, ultimately defending capitalism against socialist critiques.

Takeaways

• 📚 The video aims to address the empiricist argument more thoroughly, acknowledging a previous less comprehensive treatment.
• 🔍 Empiricism is an epistemic position that asserts empirical knowledge must be verifiable or falsifiable by experience.
• 📊 Synthetic propositions, which can be falsified through experience, contrast with analytic propositions that are true by definition and not based on experience.
• 💡 Austrian School economics is based on rational arguments and axioms, such as purposeful human behavior, which empiricists might challenge as non-empirical.
• ❌ Empiricists argue that without empirical verification, concepts like purposeful human action are merely definitions without real-world application.
• 🔗 The video discusses how empiricism can be used to challenge economic theories by questioning the axioms upon which they are built.
• 🔄 Empiricism's self-defeating nature is highlighted, as it cannot be proven or disproven by its own standards, leaving it in a paradoxical position.
• 🤔 The video explores the implications of empiricism on the possibility of a priori knowledge, suggesting that some knowledge exists independently of experience.
• 🗣️ Language and action are presented as examples of a priori knowledge, challenging the empiricist view that all knowledge is derived from experience.
• 🚫 The video concludes that empiricism, as a philosophy, is flawed because it cannot account for the nature of action, values, and time, which are essential to human experience.

Q & A

What is empiricism and how does it relate to knowledge according to the script?

Empiricism is an epistemic position that relates to how people know things. It asserts that empirical knowledge, which is knowledge regarding reality, must be verifiable or at least falsifiable by experience. Experiences are unpredictable, and no one can know in advance what the outcome of a particular experience will be. If knowledge cannot be verified or falsified through experience, it is not considered knowledge about reality but merely about words, terms, and signs.

What is the difference between synthetic and analytic propositions as explained in the script?

Synthetic propositions are claims that can be falsified through experience and pertain to the real world. For example, the claim that aspirin eases the average person's headache is synthetic because it could be tested and potentially falsified. Analytic propositions, on the other hand, cannot be falsified through experience. They are true by definition, such as the claim that all bachelors are unmarried, as the definition of 'bachelor' includes being unmarried.

How does the script argue against the use of empiricism in economic theories?

The script argues that the Austrian School of economics uses rational arguments that are not based on experience but on knowledge that can be discovered prior to experience. This knowledge is derived from axioms, such as the purposeful behavior of humans, which is considered a priori knowledge. Since empiricism requires all knowledge to be falsifiable by experience, it struggles to address the foundational axioms of Austrian economics, which are not derived from experience but are logically necessary.

What is the significance of the axiom of human action in the Austrian School of economics?

The axiom of human action is fundamental to the Austrian School of economics. It posits that humans act purposefully within time to achieve goals. This axiom is considered a priori knowledge, meaning it is known without experience and is logically inconceivable to be false. All economic theories derived from this axiom are therefore considered certainly true, forming a foundational basis for Austrian economic thought.

How does the script challenge the empiricist argument that the Austrian School's economic theories can be disproven through experience?

The script challenges empiricism by pointing out that empiricism requires all knowledge to be falsifiable by experience, which is not possible for a priori knowledge like the axiom of human action. Since the Austrian School's theories are based on this a priori knowledge, empiricism cannot disprove them through experience. The script further argues that empiricism's requirement for falsifiability is self-defeating because it cannot account for the existence of a priori knowledge.

What is the constancy principle mentioned in the script, and why is it important for empirical testing?

The constancy principle is the assumption that the causes of observable phenomena must be constant and time-invariant for any empirical test to be valid. This principle is crucial because it ensures that the same variable is being tested in a controlled environment, allowing for the support or falsification of a hypothesis. Without the constancy principle, empirical tests would not be controlled, and repeated events would be mere repetitions, unable to validate or invalidate any hypothesis.

How does the script use the example of watching 'Hassan' to illustrate the importance of controlling variables in empirical tests?

The script uses the hypothetical example of watching 'Hassan' to measure brain activity to illustrate the importance of controlling variables in empirical tests. It explains that to conduct a proper experiment, one would need to control for factors such as the device used, background noise, and whether the subject is measuring their own brain activity or someone else's. If these variables are not controlled, the experiment cannot support or falsify any given hypothesis, as the results would be influenced by uncontrolled factors.

What is the self-defeating nature of empiricism as discussed in the script?

The script argues that empiricism is self-defeating because it requires all knowledge to be falsifiable by experience, but this requirement itself cannot be falsified by experience. If empiricism is considered analytic, it doesn't apply to reality and is merely a combination of words. If it is synthetic, it could theoretically be falsified in the future, meaning it could be wrong, and there would be no way to know for sure whether empiricism is right or wrong. This creates a contradiction within the philosophy of empiricism.

How does the script refute the empiricist view that language is a convention learned through experience?

The script refutes the empiricist view by arguing that understanding language involves a priori knowledge of concepts such as convention, proposition, and definition. It explains that for language to be learned as a convention, one must already understand what a convention is, which is not something learned from experience but is known a priori. Similarly, the understanding of how to mean something by saying something (proposition) and the act of defining terms are also not learned from experience but are assumed to be known beforehand.

What is the role of action in refuting empiricism according to the script?

The script uses the concept of action to refute empiricism by arguing that action presupposes causality, which cannot be falsified as all purposeful behavior involves assuming its existence. Additionally, action presupposes values that cannot be known by experience. Since empiricism cannot account for these a priori aspects of action, it is shown to be an incomplete and potentially false philosophy.