The Use of Knowledge in Society (1945) [pdf]
1–10 of 35 posts
Re: The Use of Knowledge in Society (1945) [pdf]
#2I've been exploring data / information / knowledge / wisdom management a lot over the last couple months. I was surprised to discover how little consensus there is over the meaning of each of those terms. Or rather, subfields seem to have different takes on the meanings. "Data" and "information" I can kinda pin down. "Knowledge" and "wisdom" much less. Hayek in this article for instance does not seem to ever define what he means by "knowledge". Reading between the lines, he seems to think of it as being able to use data and information to make effective / economical decisions.
It's especially unfortunate that writers assume everyone is on the same page about what "knowledge" means because the meaning of the term seems to have changed a lot over the last few hundred years.
Re: The Use of Knowledge in Society (1945) [pdf]
#3I've been exploring data / information / knowledge / wisdom management a lot over the last couple months. I was surprised to discover how little consensus there is over the meaning of each of those terms. Or rather, subfields seem to have different takes on the meanings. "Data" and "information" I can kinda pin down. "Knowledge" and "wisdom" much less. Hayek in this article for instance does not seem to ever define w…
I think I agree. Oddly, the one place where the terms gained some level of settling appears to be corporate, but I can't tell if it is due to the nature of corporations, cross-pollination or some other unknown factors.
What I personally find very interesting is the age of that paper and the fact that, the discrepancy between model most commonly presented in school ( in my case, variant of perfectly rational individual ) and real life has been voiced nearly eight decades ago and is not seriously discussed as foundational knowledge when it comes to economics.
Re: The Use of Knowledge in Society (1945) [pdf]
#4I've been exploring data / information / knowledge / wisdom management a lot over the last couple months. I was surprised to discover how little consensus there is over the meaning of each of those terms. Or rather, subfields seem to have different takes on the meanings. "Data" and "information" I can kinda pin down. "Knowledge" and "wisdom" much less. Hayek in this article for instance does not seem to ever define w…
Once you start on the path of semantics, it's often turtles all the way down. So, unless you want to be rigorous, it's best to go with the generally accepted best bet.
Re: The Use of Knowledge in Society (1945) [pdf]
#5Thanks for linking to this -- it highlights a fallacy that Hayek seemed to mire in whereas on one hand, he believed that the aggregate "market" forces would always be sufficient to stabilize pricing stability (/inflation) he railed against the ability for any 'manager' (i.e. the government) to do so.
I'd strongly recommend to folks interested in this to pick up the Stiglitz, et al 2001 Nobel Prize on information asymmetries-research https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/advanced-economic...
Re: The Use of Knowledge in Society (1945) [pdf]
#6I've been exploring data / information / knowledge / wisdom management a lot over the last couple months. I was surprised to discover how little consensus there is over the meaning of each of those terms. Or rather, subfields seem to have different takes on the meanings. "Data" and "information" I can kinda pin down. "Knowledge" and "wisdom" much less. Hayek in this article for instance does not seem to ever define w…
I’ve refrained from commenting on this one precisely because (I assume) his definition of “rational economic order” and his justification for “best”, in the first two paragraphs, are context a reader of this journal is expected to already have, since he doesn’t elaborate on them, and lacking that the rest of the paper’s basically pointless (though his protest that in 1945 it was widely denied that there is any knowledge but scientific knowledge seems deeply silly per se and exactly the kind of thing you often see from people trying to push a “rebel” image for marketing reasons…)
But yes the definitions of several other terms seem slippery and to change from one use to the next, including knowledge.
Re: The Use of Knowledge in Society (1945) [pdf]
#7Thanks for linking to this -- it highlights a fallacy that Hayek seemed to mire in whereas on one hand, he believed that the aggregate "market" forces would always be sufficient to stabilize pricing stability (/inflation) he railed against the ability for any 'manager' (i.e. the government) to do so. I'd strongly recommend to folks interested in this to pick up the Stiglitz, et al 2001 Nobel Prize on information asym…
Stigliz’ enthusiasm for “correcting” markets never seemed to extend to reducing his hypothetical information asymmetries, but rather tipped toward intervention. This disposition plays well with bureaucracy with whom he enjoys the most fervent support. Meanwhile, the market sustains an unbounded global search to identify and remediate material information deficiencies. The examples he identifies form a limited caveat to the whole. Those who bring him to the front of the line consistently miss the economic forest for an ephemeral tree, and often do so to curry political favor.
Re: The Use of Knowledge in Society (1945) [pdf]
#8nice to see this.
Re: The Use of Knowledge in Society (1945) [pdf]
#9I've been exploring data / information / knowledge / wisdom management a lot over the last couple months. I was surprised to discover how little consensus there is over the meaning of each of those terms. Or rather, subfields seem to have different takes on the meanings. "Data" and "information" I can kinda pin down. "Knowledge" and "wisdom" much less. Hayek in this article for instance does not seem to ever define w…
Once you start on the path of semantics, it's often turtles all the way down. So, unless you want to be rigorous, it's best to go with the generally accepted best bet.
For sure, I know comments about semantics often don't go down well on HN. Was just sharing something I'm intellectually curious about. The act of trying to pin down a rigorous definition has exposed me to 5-10 different interpretations and each has given me different perspective on how to manage this nebulous thing we call knowledge.
Re: The Use of Knowledge in Society (1945) [pdf]
#10Thanks for linking to this -- it highlights a fallacy that Hayek seemed to mire in whereas on one hand, he believed that the aggregate "market" forces would always be sufficient to stabilize pricing stability (/inflation) he railed against the ability for any 'manager' (i.e. the government) to do so. I'd strongly recommend to folks interested in this to pick up the Stiglitz, et al 2001 Nobel Prize on information asym…
Hayek makes no statement about the ability of market forces to stabilize prices.
On the contrary, his point is that the equilibrium price in a decentralized market is a good sufficient statistic that aggregates the current demand and supply situation.
Building on his example on page 525, if more screws of a particular size are suddenly in higher demand, then the price will increase, as it should!
The goal is not to stabilize the price but to have the price reflect the marginal opportunity cost.