This transcript is the second in a series of Murray Rothbard lectures on the history of thought. Here he explains what is wrong with the “great man” model of the history of science. Rothbard argues for his own method of sorting the wheat from the chaff in the history of ideas. FULL ARTICLE by Murray Rothbard
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13961/history-of-science-whiggism-gone-wild/
History of Science: Whiggism Gone Wild
Previous post: Political Freedom and Its Roots in Metaphysics
Next post: There is a point to getting the word out
{ 7 comments }
I was expecting at least some mention of Joe Francis. Disappointing.
I submit it is evident that individuals and groups can go wrong, such as when Germany went from the Weimar republic to fascism, or when ‘scientists’ develop the theory of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. So it is not necessary to argue the obvious, namely that truth does not develop linearly.
As a separate issue, Rothbard writes “nobody ever tests their basic axioms, ever. That’s of course obviously true.”
I do not see that this must hold. Karl Popper advocated treating one’s beliefs as hypotheses, to be tested and become extended or revised. Isn’t that what an honest individual would do? Of course someone could counter that the outlook of questioning beliefs, or of being honest, is then unquestioned. Yet that is a different matter since one’s ideals are not fixed axioms, but are allusive, and can be viewed poetically. Besides, we are speaking of science, wherein “falsification” is a requirement for understanding and testing laws, which is not the same as addressing one’s ultimate beliefs.
Hello Allen,
“I do not see that this must hold.” Does it follow from this that you are now ready to question the “axiom” of “self ownership”?
Regards,
Don
Allen: It must hold definitionally. If we justify it, it isn’t an axiom any more.
Donald, I am not questioning any particular axiom, let alone self ownership. It is only that we ought to keep an open mind to evidence and reason, both to learn when we are mistaken and to better understand when we are right. If you have some argument against self ownership or anything else, I would hope to give it a fair hearing, rather than live up to Rothbard’s view that “nobody ever tests their basic axioms.”
Vergilius, it is true that axioms hold by definition, but *the axioms themselves are still subject to change*. I presume you are familiar with the fact that Newton’s axioms were modified by Einstein, and that what was considered axiomatic in mathematics was revised by Gödel. So even foundational axioms can be revised because they conflict with reality, epistemology, or ontology. Are you suggesting that physicists & mathematicians should not have been willing to question whether or not their axioms were justified?
The reason I bring up self ownership is because we had a brief discussion about it a while back. At the time I was at a loss to adequately express myself. As a result of our exchange, I realized I had written at great length in the book without first making the case that there was a need for reformulating the concept of self ownership. Actually, I didn’t understand that the concept needed reconstructing at all. I now realize the ideas I wrote about need exactly that. Further exploration of self ownership, and of property ownership in general, and especially the discussions of (non)ownership of the intangible/nonscarce, at this site, has brought this home to me. I now have, albeit in rough form, another perspective. I would be pleased if you would consent to reading it.
Say the word and I’ll email it to you.
Regards,
Don
Donald, of course I would be pleased to study it, and I’m sure I will learn something. Your good manners and sincerity have continually impressed me.
Comments on this entry are closed.