Five hole, that is pretty nihilist point of view, kind of like `if nobody saw it, it didn`t happen` and `if 5 people saw it, 5 different things happened.`
It is like arguing the Flames didnt lost the SCF finals, because winning the cup by winning game 7 is only concept of the NHL and in your eyes the Flames won anyways. After all, NHL means absolutely nothing in the universe.
It doesn't matter if 'time is scarce' is backed up by some economic theory (opportunity cost) or whatever. The point is, the phrase 'time is scarce' AND 'opportunity cost' mean absolutely nothing to the universe.
No. It means a lot. Even for planet the time and space is scarce. If Earth is in Solar System, because of opportunity cost it means that at the same time it cannot be in the system of alpha gama whatever.
Economic theories reflect the way we look at the world, not the way the world is, and that's a huge distinction. Economics is a particularly bad example because it's a social science describing human behavior.
Economics is a science that attempts to explain consequences of human action on world of scarcity. The world of scarcity is a fact because of the nature of our universe. Unless you live in parallel universe where it is possible to live several lives simultaneously.
There was no such thing as capitalism before we were around to invent it
Simply put, capitalism is free exchange of property claims. Therefore, when first human traded his stick for a stone, capitalism was discovered, not invented. Because humans do not live isolated, but in societies, their acting takes the form of complex and intertangled relationships. Therefore capitalism stems out of a fact that humans live, and they dont live isolated. To me thats undisputed fact.
We're making these things up based on patterns we observe in ourselves and in the environment.
We`re not making things up. We are trying to understand how `things work` ie to develop a theory based on a priori true claims. If I claim that humans act, dont live isolated, I dont understand what am I making up.
The important thing to realize is these patterns aren't really there. Seeing a pattern in something is an incredible individual experience -- there is no such thing as a pattern without an observer to notice it.
I see a pattern than when I drop a rock, it falls to the ground. If I`m not there to wintess it, does it mean that the rock can fly to the sky and never come back? Gravitation wasnt a fact in our universe before Newton `noticed a pattern?`
I'd like you to explain how "if you spend one hour sleeping, you cannot spend one hour riding a bike" proves that 'time is scarce' is not a human phenomenon. Nobody 'uses time' except for human beings -- more important, nobody knows what 'time' is except human beings, and nobody explains their experience of the external world through the concept of time except human beings. Once again, there is no 'time' out there, it's something we've invented.
Actually I used the example of `immortal angels`, even for them the scarcity of time applies. Just because some beings do not realize time/scarcity of time it does not mean this time/scarcity does not exist. Unless `some being` could live simultaneously in different places, the point stands. Lack of a realization of a fact does not imply the fact itself does not exist. That is where our views differ.
I also disagree completely with the phrase "the point of having sciences and theories is to discover facts and truths using appropriate methods". One of the biggest hurdles in discussing philosophy of this sort is people are incredibly ideologically attached to science and its methods.
That is true, but if a scientist lets his own bias get in his way, he`s no longer a scientist. Thats the problem with many `theories` be it keynesian, socialist and what not (economic theories of course) which is one of reasons that they are not acceptable as theories.
Unfortunately, the scientific method has been proven to be logically untenable (most notably by Hume)...
Huh? If a scientific method is not logically untenable then its not a scietific method. Or are you saying that ALL scienific methods are logically untenable?
The scientific method relies on a continuity of results to 'prove' something. A scientist sets up an experiment that he hopes will prove or disprove his hypothesis and performs it X number of times. In one thousand experiments, he shows that condition A produces condition B........
See thats the point. Experiments (empiricism and what not) are NOT proper methodologies to formulate economic theories. That is why I said in economic theory praxeology, a priorism and methodological individualism are appropriate method. I`ll throw in some links concerning methodology in economics if you want. Theres wide debate as to why methods used in mathematics and physics are not appropriate methods to examine human behaviour.
Science is relative, just like everything else.
Here you go, relativism par excellence
Beckwith and Koukl wrote one interesting book called Relativism - Feet firmly planted in mid air. You should check it out.