Not sure this went through.
Best, Michael
You wrote:
It's an analytical proposition that is non-tautological.
In other words, a synthetic a prior--"a meaningful a priori"
No. There seems to be some confusion about what the words synthetic and analytic mean as used in positivism. As I understand it, analytic means pure symbols, synthetic means symbols that relate to the world. Tautologies are statements like "foo is foo" or "not foo is not foo". They are true regardless of whether or not foo is a pure symbol, or the name of your cat. The basis of empiricism is such a tautology.
Steve,
As I understand it, analytic means a priori, whereas synthetic means a posteriori.
Using these definitions, some statements are both synthetic and a priori (synthetic a prioris), a key insight of Austrianism. This is the basis of Hans Hoppe's critique of pure empiricism.
Best, Michael
As I understand it, in empiricism:
- synthetic statements are all claimed to be posteriori, that is, we can't reliably say anything about the world in the absence of experience
- by definition, pure analytic statements have no connection to experience whatsoever (as they are composed of pure symbols) and are therefore are neither a priori or posteriori
- statements which are analytically true tautalogies (such as all dogs are dogs) which are also synthetic in that the terms match to sense experience are claimed to be a priori
The following Wikipedia entry may help clarify the terms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_knowledge
"The modern perusal of a posteriori thought began with Immanuel Kant in a reactionary movement to Hume's sceptical approach to knowledge in his Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding. Kant, in adding the distinction between synthetic and analytic truths to the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, created four categories of knowledge (one of which, the analytic a posteriori, is never possible). Thus, the only type of a posteriori knowledge is the synthetic a posteriori."
-- Steve
Steve,
We agree on these definitions.
Applying these definitions, I think you would agree with the Austrian economists that synthetic a priori statements are meaningful.
Best, Michael
First of all, the question isn't whether or not they are meaningful. From empiricism's point of view, all synthetic propositions are meaningful. The question is whether or not empiricism is self consistent. Hoppe's critique is based on the premise that empiricism denies the synthetic a priori. But this is a false premise as modern empiricism only denies it in the case of non-tautologies.
-- Steve
That's the issue. They claim all synthetic a priori statements are tautologies.
Give me an example of an a priori statement empiricists would regard as meaningful. (You can't because
empiricism denies the synthetic a priori as Hoppe asserts.)
(Please don't cut off the top of this exchange.)
Best, Michael
Example:
All dogs are dogs.
-- Steve
In what sense is this meaningful?
In the sense that it's terms map to sensory experiences. You know what it means to experience the presence of I dog, so statements about dogs (and understood set-relationship verbs and modifiers) are meaningful to you. Whereas, if I had said:
All XB89sfd are XB89sfd.
It would be analytic proposition. Both statements are a priori in that they are tautologies, but the former is synthetic (the terms map to sensory data) and the later is analytic (the terms do not have any understood mapping to sensory data).
-- Steve
That's the issue. They claim all synthetic a priori statements are
tautologies.Give me an example of an a priori statement empiricists would
regard
as meaningful. (You can't because
empiricism denies the synthetic a priori as Hoppe asserts.)Example:
All dogs are dogs.
In what sense is this meaningful?
In the sense that it's terms map to sensory experiences. You know what
it means to experience the presence of I dog, so statements about dogs
(and understood set-relationship verbs and modifiers) are meaningful to
you. Whereas, if I had said:All XB89sfd are XB89sfd.
It would be analytic proposition. Both statements are a priori in that
they are tautologies, but the former is synthetic (the terms map to
sensory data) and the later is analytic (the terms do not have any
understood mapping to sensory data).-- Steve
The Austrians build a system of economics based on the synthetic a priori, not on experiment as the Chicagoans do. If you agree--as it seems now you do--that synthetic a priori statements are meaningful, then we have no disagreement.
Best, Michael