The Use of Knowledge in Society by F.A. Hayek

School might've told us that we can learn anything and everything and truly be masters of knowledge. While it's true that we can learn a lot and use knowledge to make a practical difference in our lives, there are limits to what we can know.
In his essay, The Use of Knowledge in Society, the economist and academic F.A. Hayek argues that knowledge will always be dispersed amongst the millions of diverse individuals that make up this world. Their wants, dreams, skills, and preferences can't be boiled down to some algorithm, but rather, this knowledge is very personal and locked behind the mind of an individual.
One might argue that by sharing knowledge we could eventually centralize it, however, Hayek's own work in the area of epistemology speaks against this. Social statistics cannot be equated with empirical observations in the natural sciences. Social statistics are more subject to change as individuals themselves change as a result of time and place. Just think of a time when you went to a store for one thing and your mind changed just in that moment.
Even with a super computer that could somehow store a bunch of social statistics, the ever changing nature of individuals in society cannot be fully comprehended by one central entity, but will be dispersed amongst us all.
#philosophy #economy #politicalscience
Instagram: amygdalacomics
Donations: ko-fi.com/phil...
Business Email: [e-mail]

[@lorenzocapitani8666]

Purpose of economics: to fight poverty of the single (microeconomics and business) - and to fight the poverty of the single it fights the poverty of the many (macroeconomics). To maximise the utility of the single one can employ the many.

[@bingeltube]

The video contains very little about Hayek's philosophy!!!

[@AnnaImaginationNYC]

It never ceases to amaze me how much people project their own limitations onto others. For instance, this author has no knowledge of Ethical Freedom. So he immediately assumes "the smartest person in the world" would also be ignorant of the ethics and personalities of others. Because this author would violate the needs and dreams of others, he assumed that the smartest person also would not take this into account. Absolutely pointless and irrevelant because this video only reflects his own limited point of view. Clearly he is not the "smartest person in the world."

[@chinchinchin695]

great

[@judithalisonlee1095]

Excellent!!

[@rimfire8217]

Interesting

[@TheMjsanty]

I am liking this video out of love and support for the channel, not because I think that Hayek is correct about … well really anything.

[@PhilosophyToons]

Lol thank you regardless

[@RykerS1]

Why do you disagree with Hayek?

[@DanielFranch]

I feel that's what democracy is for. People would vote for those who defend their interest and view of what's best for society. If it's representative, it will always be approximative. It doesn't have to be a super genius that allocates everything perfectly, but asymptotically look for the best allocation of resources. Hayek falls into the trap of believing that the free market would achieve this goal, with everyone being able to express their desires with their limited resources. But in the free market, money is power, and those with more money are able to manipulate what is offered and induce demands. Ultimately, this whole thing bases itself on an individualistic assumption as if it were obvious that what is optimal is each individual fulfilling their needs with no compromise beyond what they can spend

[@PhilosophyToons]

I think you're right on about democracy and how it could summarize the interest of all these individuals. Hayek might argue, however, that with legislation brought about by democracy, you're getting a broad blanket policy that must be applied to everyone regardless of whether they want it or not. For example, banning marijuana as policy would ban it for everyone. If you kept it as a matter of the market, however, individuals who want weed would purchase it while those who don't would just avoid it. Essentially, while democracy is a much more preferable way to express the desires of a society than a dictatorship, it might not be as accurate as just leaving it to the market. Democracy does have the benefit of being equal with one person one vote whereas those with more money will have more of an influence in the market like you said. That being said there are different markets for different people. For example, those with lots of money might be extremely influential in the rolex market, but the rest of us can exert our influence over the casio market which high income people might overlook (except bill gates who I believe owns a casio lol). And in terms of compromising choice as a result of having limited funds, I think Hayek might actually see this as a pro. Because resources are limited, the resources required to create a product is reflected in the price. So when someone is deciding whether to purchase something, they're letting the producer know by purchasing/not purchasing whether it's a good use of those limited resources to make that product.

[@crashoppe]

check out the video. "why Socrates hated Democracy". it might change your mind. the free market works great when its 2 sided. if a product (gasoline for example) is made too cheap compared to the cost or the cost is too high, it is the "obligation" of the consumers to boycott the product, "no matter what". this keeps the businesses in line to act fairly or risk losing their business. even the largest corporation in the world has bills to pay every month. cut off their supply of money and it would only be a very short time for them to start suffering. by no means am i saying this (or any other we have come up with) is a perfect system. if you're not versed in economics, the video, "Commanding Heights: The Battle of the World Economy" might be interesting to you.

[@thorvaldspear]

@@PhilosophyToons I suppose then that the biggest problem with Hayek's argument is that people aren't rational decision makers. In a completely free market drug sales would proliferate as sellers take advantage of how people prioritize short term pleasure over long term gain. A world of junkies.

[@rimfire8217]

@@thorvaldspearWell that feeds into the theory of Social Darwinism . Most advocates of Free-Market economics believe that if left to their own devices; Social Issues will inevitably work themselves out. If a hypothetical world of junkies were to emerge it would likely only exist a short time before total collapse. What remains will be the people who abstained from drugs and hedonistic practices in favor of a healthier lifestyle. The question is are you willing to wait?

[@thorvaldspear]

@@rimfire8217 The people who abstained did so because of environmental circumstances rather than an inability to get addicted to drugs. So when society collapses, hardship and other conditions that lead people to harmful forms of escape will continue to exist, causing another world of junkies. Up to and until a system of governance forms that enforces a non-drug lifestyle. Just like that you have government regulation, as only such a system can survive long term. So you'd end up with what we have today, but at the cost of massive suffering. If you want to go the evolutionary route, society would have to kill off the people who are susceptible to addiction (addiction here being a proxy for the human condition) for many tens (and probably hundreds) of thousands of years in order to actually meaningfully change the gene pool. So after countless millennia of unimaginable human suffering you get a chance of a society where social issues are worked out. To answer your question: No, I am not willing to wait, and anyone that is willing is either ignorant, stupid, spiteful, or straight up evil. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of basic game theory and the social dynamics that derive from it. EDIT: I'd be surprised if there isn't a game theory based refutation of Hayek's argument.

[@lorenzocapitani8666]

If hayek where right (according to what I hear here) the science art of marketing would not exist - the reason is that it would fail to predict the behaviour of the individual for it would be unfathomable and marketing is based on the understanding of the tastes of an individual. Frankly marketing exists and works, and for that reason - on the basis of what is said here - hayek was not a decent philosopher for he preached something which is not connected with the truths of society. Tastes and opinions can be predicted - not only in business economics (marketing) but also instictevly through hunches (which can be more wrong for hunches are not base on a sicentific method).

[@lorenzocapitani8666]

@maclinkastex3059 Probability is a science based on law - if you can allocate a probability to something it means it has meccanics which can be predicted - There is an absolute that can be detected and thats what marketing does - just as metereology does it with the weather. Logic implies the absolute and the meccanics that can be used to predict it - hayek is not worth considering.

[@lorenzocapitani8666]

@maclinkastex3059 The mecchanics might not be known but if statistics is used (which is a mecchanic to predict) it means that the mecchanics are there! It is predictable - statistics - probability (which is a mathematical science taught in high school) is a mecchanic used to predict that which has mecchanics and is thus predictable even if at the moment you do not have a precise law to predict it - if there was no law you would not be able to use statistics - LOGIC - Else you would have anarchy (not chaos, but anarchy) which cannot be predicted by statistics for it lacks a mecchanic because of the definition of anarchy. The reason why I state Hayek is a waste of time is because through logic I just proved his affermation to be FALSE. Its not an issue of opinion, its and issue of Logic and Science - Giving credit to hayek is like giving credit to someone that says the earth is flat, even once you show him a picture of the earth as an irregular spheroid, something that is out of order and non decent (thus, for that reason, to be avoided).

[@Datbiolaguy]

You have less knowledge about this topic than you assume yourself to. Even when someone else is pointing out the holes in your so called logic you are missing the point. You made a logic leap by saying if Hayek is right Marketing will not exist, that is not remotely true as proven by the other commenter above

[@lorenzocapitani8666]

@@Datbiolaguy Marketing and climateology are both science based on inference - which means there is a structure that can be deteceted - but that structure is simple not known. There is ignorance. An apple falls - Logic there is something that makes it fall. An apple falls many times - Logic there is a LAW that makes it fall. (law is structure) Thus there is somenthing - not nothing. Proven by logic. Hayek claims subjectivity thus the lack of laws - but there are Accademic disciplines which try to infer these laws and they have more than partial success which logically means that laws exist (they infer something for they give results). Which logically means hayek is wrong. If hayek where right there would be Anarchy - non correlation of factors, instead there is correlation - thus there is reason to say there are laws which are backed by evidence. Which is what climatelogy and marketing prove. Logic: Hayek is wrong. I hope I explained why, in a more understandable format. By the way: please do not confuse Chaos with anarchy - they are two different concepts.

[@moathalmahroqi]

I think you've misunderstood. Hayek's theory has nothing to do with marketing, but with central planning of everything at the same time. When you market a product, you calculate the order for one product and still you don't get 100%. So what if you were a central planner who calculates everything taking everything into account? I don't think there is a super computer capable of that.

[@gobilla2124]

this is a great video thanks!

[@TwoDudesPhilosophy]

Loved this video!

[@מתניהחורי]

good job man'! thanks from israel :)