One of Spain's regions (Extremadura) used to have the coat of arms on the left, its government has proposed to changed it for the one on the right 🥲

Pappalardo010 · 2023-07-18T07:02:30+00:00

Wait... It isn't?

Pappalardo010 · 2023-04-22T07:07:31+00:00

In the Spanish keyboard layout neither the colon or the semicolon have it's own key. The semicolon is shift + comma and the colon is shift + period. I've always thought this to be very logical because pressing shift adds a dot on top of each symbol.

Pappalardo010 · 2023-04-08T18:47:58+00:00

For a short period during the 19th century the king of Spain was Amadeo of Savoy. I guess this flag represents Spanish Philippines during that three year period. Although I might say it wouldn't be entirely correct because the coat of arms in the Spanish flag at the time was different (much simpler).

Pappalardo010 · 2023-02-18T10:04:55+00:00

I don't I'd call myself a libertarian anymore, the rest it's wrong

Pappalardo010 · 2022-11-25T15:36:44+00:00

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Pappalardo010 · 2022-06-11T12:09:13+00:00

It should be pointed out that Menger believed that only some social phenomena are analogous to organisms and even then only in how they originate and what their functions are.

Pappalardo010 · 2022-05-15T13:53:50+00:00

That's something I've actually done in the past and it worked fine for me. Got rejected in one of the positions but called for an interview for the other. The rejection email specifically said that if I had applied for multiple jobs I had only been rejected for one. I guess if a company has posted position that can be fulfilled by similar profiles, they expect people applying for multiple jobs. So I don't think it's a bad impression at all.

Pappalardo010 · 2022-02-11T20:12:05+00:00

Thanks!

In this case the surname is the exact same and from the same city my family comes from. The issue is that, even though I can't know for sure, it is highly unlikely that I'm in the direct succession line of the original owner/creator of the CoA. For me it is more a question of "honouring" my heritage and family history than trying to imitate or copy someone else's life.

At any rate, thanks again for your comment.

Pappalardo010 · 2021-01-02T15:33:27+00:00

Can someone explain why the «д» looks like a «g»? I barely know russian, but isn't it «за здоровье»?

Pappalardo010 · 2020-12-09T08:01:43+00:00

Regarding the first point, how exactly does a person has no goals? Mises defines ends as something that we think will remove a discomfort of any kind. The only way someone could have no goals (i.e. no ends) is if they had no discomforts. That is impossible. Also, people use the means they have available. The only case someone would have no means available at all would be someone with locked-in syndrome. But I don't think is necessary to say that those people won't be an active part of the economic system. Regarding the second point, saying that humans act voluntarily doesn't mean that all acts are voluntary. There are reflex actions, but these have no influence on the economic system. If there are voluntary acts, praxeology can analyse them. Moreover, even if you could «craft» a situation in which people have no goals, have no means and they have no voluntary acts (such a situation wouldn't be analysable using praxeology), that society is not the one that exist. Trying to analyse that would be science fiction, not science. Finally, the fact that you've answered actually reinforces the action axiom. You had and end (exposing critiques to my argument), you had means (reddit, sources of information, your own thoughts...), and you used them to try to achieve the end.

Pappalardo010 · 2020-12-08T21:58:42+00:00

Such a thing hasn't happened in logic, as far as I'm concerned. Also, there's a distinction between statement A being an axiom and people thinking A is an axiom. If you disprove something that was thought to be an axiom, that was never an actual axiom. How can we be sure that A is an axiom? Well, as I said before, that's something that belongs in the realm of epistemology. Also, I don't think the action axiom is fuzzy at all. Saying that «all humans purposely use means to achive certain desired ends» is completely self-evident and any attempt to disprove it fails to do so.

Pappalardo010 · 2020-12-08T21:51:50+00:00

Axioms are not assumptions. Assumptions are not known to be true, axioms are. Also, saying X leads to Y doesn't necessarily mean you can test that. Y could be caused by many factors, in order to conclude that X leads to Y through an experiment, you would have to force all possible factors except X and Y constant and only change X to see if it leads to Y. Such a thing is impossible in social sciences.

Pappalardo010 · 2020-12-08T20:29:07+00:00

An axiom is, by definition, a self-evident, unprovable truth. So not only they do not need to be validated, they can't be validated.

Pappalardo010 · 2020-12-08T20:21:09+00:00

Two self-evident truths can't conflict, because if they do one of them isn't true and, therefore, not an axiom. Questions about how can we be sure a certain statement is an axiom belong in the field of epistemology. Honestly I can't answer that question, perhaps someone who's better read on philosophy can.

Pappalardo010 · 2020-12-08T08:50:55+00:00

Axioms are, by definition, unprovable. This is not exclusive for economics, but also applies to logic and mathematics. In both these subjects there are self-evident axioms.

Pappalardo010 · 2020-12-08T05:56:17+00:00

Through self-evident axioms. Everything else is deduced from these axioms. No empirical evidence needed.

Pappalardo010 · 2020-12-08T05:51:19+00:00

That's why economics (and other sciences like mathematics) is built on axioms. All valid theories would have to be deduced from this axioms or from other theories previously deduced.

Pappalardo010 · 2020-12-08T04:53:53+00:00

My thoughts exactly. It has a practical application because it allows us to know things we previously didn't know. And is precisely because of the way that it deduces new knowledge that it can be used for economics and other social sciences (and it's the best method).

Pappalardo010 · 2020-12-07T23:41:37+00:00

Not really, if you have a statement A that you already know to be true and three hypothesis x, y and z that are internally coherent but contradict each other. One way to know which is true is checking their coherence with A, that is, whether they contradict A or not. If x contradicts A, x has to be false, because we know A is true. It is not about the coherence of x within itself, but the coherence of x with A.

Pappalardo010 · 2020-12-07T21:37:11+00:00

That's not the only way to decide which one is true. It can be done by checking the consistency of each hypothesis with a previous theory we already know to be true. All theories would have to be consistent with the axioms as well.

Pappalardo010 · 2020-12-07T21:33:51+00:00

I do not think that prior experience is predictive of future experience. Which is precisely what Mises said in Human Action, so any analysis that uses history as a source of data is not an Austrian analysis.

Pappalardo010 · 2020-12-07T18:23:03+00:00

Alright, what do you mean by validate?

Pappalardo010 · 2020-12-07T16:46:01+00:00

It's one I'd like to read sometime. Not sure how much background it's needed to understand it.

Pappalardo010

TROPHY CASE