01 Mar 2012

Murphy on Stossel on SEC

Shameless Self-Promotion 12 Comments

Yikes with all of my traveling I almost forgot to tell you that my clip with Stossel is supposed to air tonight (Thursday) at 9pm. I think I’m the second guest of the episode.

Also check this out–it alone makes my bondage to Mark Zuckerberg worthwhile.

12 Responses to “Murphy on Stossel on SEC”

  1. Zachariah Crossen says:

    I’ll set the DVR!

  2. Bharat says:

    Who’s the person on the left?

  3. Blackadder says:

    Isn’t it the case of all axioms that they can’t be refuted?

    • Rick Hull says:

      Declaring a fact to be an axiom does not put it beyond refute. I feel like the axiom-holder is actually declaring it to be indefensible or likewise resistant to further breakdown and analysis — but that reasonable interested parties can agree to hold it true for the sake of argument.

      It would still be a valid form of disagreement to hold the axiom to be false.

      • Blackadder says:

        Declaring a fact to be an axiom does not put it beyond refute.

        Just because you say something is an axiom doesn’t make it an axiom. However, it is part of the definition of an axiom that it can’t be proven or disproven. So if something is an axiom, then by definition it can’t be refuted (though it can be rejected).

        It would still be a valid form of disagreement to hold the axiom to be false.

        Sure. An axiom can be false, it just can’t be refuted.

    • Bharat says:

      Axioms cannot be false. Therefore Blackadder sleeps all day. Therefore Blackadder did not make this post.

      • Blackadder says:

        Axioms cannot be false.

        Nope. See my response to Rick Hull above.

        • Bharat says:

          Oh, I got you, that’s a good point. True axioms require that you use the axiom in the attempt to refute it.

  4. UnlearningEcon says:

    Hey, completely random question:

    I’m curious about the human action axiom and drugs. Do you consider all human action purposeful when people are under the influence of mental illnesses or intoxicated? Are acts still justified if people make them based on thinking there is, say, a pink elephant attacking them (when there isn’t).


    • Greego says:

      Sometimes when I’m out drinking I get cravings for pizza and other unhealthy foods. As a result I’ve been known to stumble into late night eateries, buy food and consume it. Eating unhealthy food late at night is probably not good for me in the long run though.

      Sometimes I’ve been so drunk I’ve passed out.


    • noiselull says:

      I don’t know why are using the word “justified”. A subscriber to the view that human action is an axion would say that actions are taken to achieve ends and taking into consideration what the person thinks. The fact that one is on drugs does not mean his action are not purposive. The drugs may change his preferences and/or change what knowledge he percieves to be relevant to his action.

  5. Tel says:

    On the subject of shameless self-promotion, there’s been a story going round along the lines of “Is this the reason democracy can’t work? Study find humans are too dumb to pick the right person to lead us” and I went back to the original research and reckon the stats calculations are completely wrong.

    Would appreciate if someone could just make sure I haven’t made any embarrassing blunders…


Leave a Reply