I usually skip over the introductions in stuff like this, but Agnes is so charming that I'm watching her introduce Tyler and just super entertained. Looking forward to the rest of this talk!
Tyler mentions the contribution of philosophy to public policy, especially bioethics. One excellent example is Baroness Mary Warnock. She contributed to many aspects of policy choices in the UK, including pollution, animal experimentation and special needs education (with mixed results in her own assessment). Her crowning achievement was chairing a 2-year inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology. It resulted in a practical prescriptive report that won widespread praise and achieved a solid consensus, leading to legislation passed in 1990.
A perspective not examined in this discussion is the extent to which economics is a sub-discipline of political economy, and political economy is a sub-discipline of moral philosophy. It is worth remembering that Adam Smith was a professor of moral philosophy. In addition to "Wealth of Nations" his other major work was "The Theory of Moral Sentiments." It was Henry George, late in the 19th century, who embarked on a serious attempt to achieve a harmonized use of inductive and deductive analysis to bring forth a study of the science of political economy that corrected the logical and factual mistakes of his contemporaries and predecessors. This occurred at the very beginning of economics arising out of the need by governments and industrial enterprises for the gathering of statistics and reports on a nation's land, natural resources and other productive assets required for both empire and industrial expansion. We should not be surprised that the first advanced degrees in economics were awarded by universities in Germany and Britain. The analyses of economists (as economists) was by design free of moral judgments. As such, the analysis provided by Henry George (and others who pursued the same course of scientific investigation) was threatening to economists and their patrons, patrons who benefitted by systems of law and taxation that resulted in the redistribution of wealth from actual producers to "rentier" and monopolistic interests. One result was the emergence of theoretical assertions that there was no reason to distinguish nature (i.e., land) from other forms of assets (i.e., capital), even though the evidence was then and is today clear that price does not clear the markets for land and natural resources; rather, rising prices of natural assets results in further hoarding and speculative investment rather than in production. Mainstream economics continues to rely on this fictitious two-factor model of the production and distribution of wealth. In 1994 economists Fred Harrison, Mason Gaffney and Kris Feder detailed this story in their book "The Corruption of Economics." It should not surprise anyone that the funding to endow the departments of economics at the world's major universities came from people with the most to lose by systemic reforms. Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A. School of Cooperative Individualism www.cooperative-individualism.org
The U.S. political machine would be well served to invite Agnes to advise and/or just enter into a weekly conversation with the powers that be. Very sharp and insightful.
What I found from this talk is that economics and philosophy seem to share totally different terminologies. While prof. Cowen put forward that an economist tries to be value-free, prof. Callard challenges him with terminologies such as freedom and humanity, which are value-focused. The difference in fundamental terminologies leads to different ways of modeling the world.
Philosophy of action can learn a lot from economics,political philosophy and moral philosophy also can learn a lot from economics and game theory. Economics can learn a lot from philosophy of science,epistemology and philosophy of action. Like think about some views in political philosophy, like economic equilibria (nash equilibrium ) for example views like classical liberalism,secularism, think about them like solution concepts but methodological subjetivism must be into account. Also think about an emotivist view of morality, and then we can conceive of game where individuals reach an economic equilibrium.
I"ve listened to the first hour, and while interesting, I think it can be summed up this way: Callard asks why economists think in x way. Cowen answers. Callard unjustifiably universalizes Cowen's response into the idea that all people should always think that way and responds with some objection to that universalization. Cowen, because he never made that argument, is at a loss. They move on to the next thing and the same errors repeat.
Tyler has the patience of a saint lol Trying to get someone to be more empirically minded when they’ve already gained status and stature reasoning from intuitions inside a field that suffers from genetic drift and an obsession with abstract nouns seems futile
Philosophy doesnt care since reality is not necessarily only material and that economic only acts because of the means, where Philosphers are still thinking about what is better.
Tyler: both philosophy and econ have virtues and weaknesses. Right? Agnes: id like to think about this in such a way such that philosophy as such is better than econ as such to think about.
I somehow feel that Eric wanted that I found this On a sidenote. I passed the mensa test last december by surprise. Did it for the giggels and i like those complete the pattern games. So this is the planet i belong
Tyler: both philosophy and econ have virtues and weaknesses. Right? Agnes: id like to think about this in such a way such that philosophy as such is better than econ as such to think about.
I found this one of the saddest vids I've seen in a long time. Tyler Cowen was excellent, as always, but his counterpart didn't hold up her end. I kept wishing I could see one of the people I remember from the department where she got her PhD. Berkeley philosophy profs have a tradition of challenging various forms of scientific overreach. Dreyfus was the best critic of early AI, and he was proven right. He also used phenomenological insight to criticize social science. Feyerabend was very good at explaining the limits of 'methodology.' Searle, from the analytical perspectivve, had a bunch of insights regarding language and the scope of social science . This lady just played with her hair, stared off into the distance, smiled and said absolutely nothing a reasonably well read undergrad might. Depressing.
Haha figured as much. Personally Im more intrusted in political realism and public accounting of Institutional spending. I think these areas highligh the macroforces on the State and domestic policy better than some broad critique of economics. Example Homeland Security theoretically spends 12 million per mile yet whats the bigges greivence on the right. The military spent 12 million per capita kill in the Iraq and Afghanistan yet wheres the economic benefit to justify this from even the Political Realist view. Whats the economic justification for contracting out a 3.7 billion cyber security budget for Homeland Securitt when we have internal research for this. What the economic rational for privitizing public institutional research. Whats rational for complaing about the threat of big tech when a private public partnership can create govern and promote an app on for a few hundred thousand dollars. So the reality seems to be scaled controlled to some end that doesnt translate into public utility or justice.
I must agree. She might be a great philosopher in many areas but philosophy of economics is certainly not one of them. Anyone who has doubts on this search for Daniel Hausman or Julian Reiss videos. In less than an hour they'll have brought up more and more challenging problems to economics than in the three hours of this video.
I usually skip over the introductions in stuff like this, but Agnes is so charming that I'm watching her introduce Tyler and just super entertained.
Looking forward to the rest of this talk!
Two of my favorite public thinkers. Thank you, Tyler and Agnes.
1:14:00 Oh Cowen, always flattering us.
Tyler came prepared
This is super entertaining. Thank you!
Tyler mentions the contribution of philosophy to public policy, especially bioethics. One excellent example is Baroness Mary Warnock. She contributed to many aspects of policy choices in the UK, including pollution, animal experimentation and special needs education (with mixed results in her own assessment). Her crowning achievement was chairing a 2-year inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology. It resulted in a practical prescriptive report that won widespread praise and achieved a solid consensus, leading to legislation passed in 1990.
I’m about halfway through. Fantastic
A perspective not examined in this discussion is the extent to which economics is a sub-discipline of political economy, and political economy is a sub-discipline of moral philosophy. It is worth remembering that Adam Smith was a professor of moral philosophy. In addition to "Wealth of Nations" his other major work was "The Theory of Moral Sentiments." It was Henry George, late in the 19th century, who embarked on a serious attempt to achieve a harmonized use of inductive and deductive analysis to bring forth a study of the science of political economy that corrected the logical and factual mistakes of his contemporaries and predecessors. This occurred at the very beginning of economics arising out of the need by governments and industrial enterprises for the gathering of statistics and reports on a nation's land, natural resources and other productive assets required for both empire and industrial expansion. We should not be surprised that the first advanced degrees in economics were awarded by universities in Germany and Britain. The analyses of economists (as economists) was by design free of moral judgments. As such, the analysis provided by Henry George (and others who pursued the same course of scientific investigation) was threatening to economists and their patrons, patrons who benefitted by systems of law and taxation that resulted in the redistribution of wealth from actual producers to "rentier" and monopolistic interests. One result was the emergence of theoretical assertions that there was no reason to distinguish nature (i.e., land) from other forms of assets (i.e., capital), even though the evidence was then and is today clear that price does not clear the markets for land and natural resources; rather, rising prices of natural assets results in further hoarding and speculative investment rather than in production. Mainstream economics continues to rely on this fictitious two-factor model of the production and distribution of wealth.
In 1994 economists Fred Harrison, Mason Gaffney and Kris Feder detailed this story in their book "The Corruption of Economics." It should not surprise anyone that the funding to endow the departments of economics at the world's major universities came from people with the most to lose by systemic reforms.
Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A.
School of Cooperative Individualism
www.cooperative-individualism.org
Do Chicago students like to ask loaded questions?
It's ok to edit out announcements.
25:25 Mic drop!
The U.S. political machine would be well served to invite Agnes to advise and/or just enter into a weekly conversation with the powers that be. Very sharp and insightful.
It's not the case that a moral principle is just will give to x a greater utility than to y?
What I found from this talk is that economics and philosophy seem to share totally different terminologies. While prof. Cowen put forward that an economist tries to be value-free, prof. Callard challenges him with terminologies such as freedom and humanity, which are value-focused. The difference in fundamental terminologies leads to different ways of modeling the world.
Not a debate at all. Just trying to bash him.
haha he's talking about feedback as the audio is feeding back
Philosophy of action can learn a lot from economics,political philosophy and moral philosophy also can learn a lot from economics and game theory.
Economics can learn a lot from philosophy of science,epistemology and philosophy of action.
Like think about some views in political philosophy, like economic equilibria (nash equilibrium ) for example views like classical liberalism,secularism, think about them like solution concepts but methodological subjetivism must be into account.
Also think about an emotivist view of morality, and then we can conceive of game where individuals reach an economic equilibrium.
Comment section is worthless as usual.
I"ve listened to the first hour, and while interesting, I think it can be summed up this way: Callard asks why economists think in x way. Cowen answers. Callard unjustifiably universalizes Cowen's response into the idea that all people should always think that way and responds with some objection to that universalization. Cowen, because he never made that argument, is at a loss. They move on to the next thing and the same errors repeat.
Tyler has the patience of a saint lol
Trying to get someone to be more empirically minded when they’ve already gained status and stature reasoning from intuitions inside a field that suffers from genetic drift and an obsession with abstract nouns seems futile
Did this lady think economists were evil robots?
$50 Economics knocks Philosophy out in the 3rd round
It didn't take hat long
Philosophy doesnt care since reality is not necessarily only material and that economic only acts because of the means, where Philosphers are still thinking about what is better.
at 42:00 agnes very pointed does not respond. annoying
someone give me a quick rundown.
Tyler: both philosophy and econ have virtues and weaknesses. Right?
Agnes: id like to think about this in such a way such that philosophy as such is better than econ as such to think about.
I somehow feel that Eric wanted that I found this
On a sidenote. I passed the mensa test last december by surprise. Did it for the giggels and i like those complete the pattern games. So this is the planet i belong
Tyler: both philosophy and econ have virtues and weaknesses. Right?
Agnes: id like to think about this in such a way such that philosophy as such is better than econ as such to think about.
So what where economist maximizing for the State when we spend 12 milliom per mile for Homeland Security or 12 million per capita kill for war?
I found this one of the saddest vids I've seen in a long time. Tyler Cowen was excellent, as always, but his counterpart didn't hold up her end. I kept wishing I could see one of the people I remember from the department where she got her PhD. Berkeley philosophy profs have a tradition of challenging various forms of scientific overreach. Dreyfus was the best critic of early AI, and he was proven right. He also used phenomenological insight to criticize social science. Feyerabend was very good at explaining the limits of 'methodology.' Searle, from the analytical perspectivve, had a bunch of insights regarding language and the scope of social science . This lady just played with her hair, stared off into the distance, smiled and said absolutely nothing a reasonably well read undergrad might. Depressing.
Haha figured as much. Personally Im more intrusted in political realism and public accounting of Institutional spending. I think these areas highligh the macroforces on the State and domestic policy better than some broad critique of economics. Example Homeland Security theoretically spends 12 million per mile yet whats the bigges greivence on the right. The military spent 12 million per capita kill in the Iraq and Afghanistan yet wheres the economic benefit to justify this from even the Political Realist view. Whats the economic justification for contracting out a 3.7 billion cyber security budget for Homeland Securitt when we have internal research for this. What the economic rational for privitizing public institutional research. Whats rational for complaing about the threat of big tech when a private public partnership can create govern and promote an app on for a few hundred thousand dollars. So the reality seems to be scaled controlled to some end that doesnt translate into public utility or justice.
sounds like ur making some value judgments that can't be explained through market principkles
hope youre not too sad.
It's honestly your fake superior insecurity which is depressing. There aren't enough Agnes in academia, and way too many of your sort.
I must agree. She might be a great philosopher in many areas but philosophy of economics is certainly not one of them. Anyone who has doubts on this search for Daniel Hausman or Julian Reiss videos. In less than an hour they'll have brought up more and more challenging problems to economics than in the three hours of this video.
There is no useful dialogue possible with libertarians.
@Elias Håkansson He has the temerity to spout drivel and breathe my air.