--- John Medaille <[log in to unmask]> wrote:  
  
> Fred Foldvary wrote:  
>   
> >Why is an axiomatic deductive approach invalid?  
>   
> Because it presumes that you know which axioms to   
> start with,  
  
It is sufficient that the axioms are based on observed  
reality.  It is difficult to analyze if there are  
necessary but missing premises, but others who analyze  
the argument will eventurally point out flaws that  
point to missing premises.  
  
> which is to claim you know   
> the end of the argument before it starts.  
  
This does not make an argument invalid.  
In geometry, one can know the conclusion ahead of  
time, but if the premises are true and the logic is  
valid, then the argument is sound.  
If I construct an airplane, I know the "end": to have  
a machine that flies.  Knowing the end or goal does  
not make it impossible to build an airplane.  
  
> Demonstrations start in axioms that are   
> considered to be self-evident, or from   
> propositions clearly derivable from such axioms.   
  
Not in science.  Axioms for science need to be based  
on observed reality.  For example, an axiom in  
economic theory is that human desires tend to be  
unlimited, an axiom explicitly stated, for example, by  
Henry George in Progress and Poverty.    
  
This axiom is not "self evident."  We can imagine a  
society in which everyone is fully satiated.  We can  
be confident of its truth from observation and  
induction, including introspection, the observation of  
one' own desires. (I also ask in economics classes if  
there is any student who is completely satisfied, and  
wants nothing more, and nobody raises a hand.)  
  
> The "axioms" will always dissolve   
> into beliefs about the nature of man, beliefs   
> which are reducible to nothing else than belief.   
  
How does the axiom of unlimited desires dissolve?  
  
> As far as reaching the universal, John Locke is   
> an exceptionally bad example. His purpose was to   
> justify the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, which   
> was a revolution of property owners (and a   
> relatively new kind of property at that) against   
> royal authority (which embodied another kind of   
> property claim.)  
  
This justification is irrelevant to his philosophy,  
and his contradictions can be handled by rejecting his  
invalid conclusions and accepting the valid ones.  
We should not be Locke worshipers, but simply give him  
credit for discovering or clarifying some important  
concepts in ethical and political philosphy.  
  
>  His "universality" was limited   
> to a certain class of Englishman, and did not   
> extend to Catholics, Africans, or other "lesser   
> breeds without the law," to use Kipling's quaint   
> phrase.  
  
The universality is in some of Locke's writing, and we  
can discard his unsound propositions.   
His statement in the Second Treatise that "The State  
of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it" does not  
itself exclude any class of human beings.  The texts  
of any philosopher or scientists are severable, not  
some some body to be accepted or rejected as a whole.  
  
> slaves, being   
> incapable of property, could not have any social   
> or political place or dignity.  
  
Yes, Locke had contradictions.  
But his ethical premises are: "being all equal and  
independent."  This text implies equality for all.  
  
If I say, "human beings are mammals" and also say  
"human beings are not animals", the falsity of the  
latter does not make the former untrue.  
  
> Mises [defended] the pure capitalist.  
  
My reading is that Mises defended above all the ideal  
type of the pure entrepreneur, a different function  
than the mere owner (titler holder) of capital goods  
(like one who owns shares of stock).  
  
> Those who claim to   
> have reached the final terms can usually be shown   
> to be servants of some set of class interests,   
  
Since I make such a claim, what class interest do you  
think I represent?  
  
Fred Foldvary