Israel Kirzner on Coordination and Discovery

Israel Kirzner has been one of the leaders in fashioning an Austrian school of economics. In his rendering of the Austrian school, one finds a marriage between Friedrich Hayek’s discourse with Ludwig von Mises’s deductive, praxeological image of science — a marriage that seems to us somewhat forced. The Misesian image of science stakes its claims to scientific status on purported axioms and categorical, 100-percent deductive truths, as well as the supposed avoidance of any looseness in evaluative judgments. In keeping with the praxeological style of discourse, Kirzner claims that his notion of coordination can be used as a clear-cut criterion of economic goodness. Kirzner wishes to claim that gainful entrepreneurial action in the market is always coordinative. We contend that Kirzner’s efforts to be categorical and to avoid looseness are unsuccessful. We argue that looseness inheres in the economic discussion of the most important things, and associate that viewpoint with Adam Smith. We suggest that Hayek is much closer to Smith than to Mises, and that Kirzner’s invocations of Hayek’s discussions of coordination are spurious. In denying looseness and trying to cope with the brittleness of categorical claims, Kirzner becomes abstruse. His discourse erupts with problems. Kirzner has erred in rejecting the understanding of coordination held by Hayek, Ronald Coase, and their contemporaries in the field at large. Kirzner’s refraining from the looser Smithian perspective stems from his devotion to Misesianism. Beyond all the criticism, however, we affirm the basic thrust of what Kirzner says about economic processes. Once we give up the claim that voluntary profitable activity is always or necessarily coordinative, and once we make peace with the aesthetic aspect of the idea of concatenate coordination, the basic claims of Kirzner can be salvaged: Voluntary profitable activity is usually coordinative, and government intervention is usually discoordinative. But the Misesian image of science must be dropped.coordination; concatenation; discovery; entrepreneurship;

Science, Values and Loves:Theologies as Expressive Constructions

Invited to write “a manifesto for [my] own theological position”, I begin with science and human rights as excellent examples of universalist aspirations of modernity. Modern individualism is important too, as particular existential loves shape each life. Science, morality, and personal loves are interwoven in theologies, as creative constructions. The sciences are important, as we need not only individual authenticity but also accountability. My position presented here is science-inspired naturalistic theism. It is not “religious naturalism”, given the categorical difference between facts and values. It is not “natural theology”, as inductive approaches do not reach that far. It comes closer to a “theology of nature”, but it does not assume the epistemic claims involved. I consider theologies to be important expressive constructions

Categorical Abstract Logic: Hidden Multi-Sorted Logics as Multi-Term Institutions

Babenyshev and Martins proved that two hidden multi-sorted deductive systems are deductively equivalent if and only if there exists an isomorphism between their corresponding lattices of theories that commutes with substitutions. We show that the -institutions corresponding to the hidden multi-sorted deductive systems studied by Babenyshev and Martins satisfy the multi-term condition of Gil-Férez. This provides a proof of the result of Babenyshev and Martins by appealing to the general result of Gil-Férez pertaining to arbitrary multi-term -institutions. The approach places hidden multi-sorted deductive systems in a more general framework and bypasses the laborious reuse of well-known proof techniques from traditional abstract algebraic logic by using “off the shelf” tools

Notes towards a manifesto for uncertain times – the future for the arts and education in Scotland

No abstract available

Conditions for interoperability

Interoperability for information systems remains a challenge both at the semantic and organisational levels. The original three-level architecture for local databases needs to be replaced by a categorical four-level one based on concepts, constructions, schema types and data together with the mappings between them. Such an architecture provides natural closure as further levels are superfluous even in a global environment. The architecture is traversed by means of the Godement calculus: arrows may be composed at any level as well as across levles. The necessary and sufficient conditions for interoperability are satisfied by composable (formal) diagrams both for intension and extension in categories that are cartesian closed and locally cartesian closed. Methods like partial categories and sketches in schema design can benefit from Freyd’s punctured diagrams to identify precisely type-forcing natural transformations. Closure is better achieved in standard full categories. Global interoperability of extension can be achieved through semantic annotation but only if applied at run time