Mathematical-Metaphorical Argument Analysis Using FPF.
My argument will be opposing the blog argument, it is not a crime driving the passengers around in a taxi for the purpose of cash. the general comments in response to the blog argument were as follows its unfair to the cab operators, we must decongest the city, the cost on government regulation is higher than the benefits the cabs generate, it should be an enterprise run by the government like in Dubai, common strategies are better solved by the government institutions, it feels safe and secure when driving in a licensed taxi, its too late to reverse everything among others.
Bellow is a list of correspondences catalog
Wage-w
Unemployment- u
Job effort- e O
Enjoyment related to work- u w-e
Shirkingq
The solutions concept of the model
Maxe (V(e, . )) V(e, . ) VN
E(e, . ), VS E(e, . )
subject to e 0,), w 0,)
The model solution report
(For e 0, )), e is expected to be at a positive point where e 0 if and only if
The solution above can be interpreted on two levels
According to its own I.F terms
And according to the I.F primary subject terms
(For e 0, )), e at some point will be positive e 0 only if
The statement can be classified TRUE- it does not go against the model set-up and the mathematics relevant rules (Ravenhill 45-46).
The truth is dependent and has NOTHING in common with the mentioned phenomenon in the phase delimiting.
Here are the acrual mathematical implications of the model
When w is higher it will lead to
increase in the value of wage e,
increase in the value of Vu,
decrease in the value of shirking q,
increase in the value of r,
Increase in the value of b.
This interpretation have a direct link to the rate of unemployment, the 5th equation has numerous impacts. If the company pays enough or high wages then it means the employees will not shirk. When the critical wage (w) is on the higher side then
1) The higher is the effort required (e)
2) The higher is the utility expected in relation to unemployment Vu.
3) The higher is the effort required (e)
4) Lower is the shirking probability (q)
5) The higher is the interest rates
6) The higher is the exogenous rate of quitting (b)
Lets now compare the solution to the two interpretations
It is to double standards because we are forced by the metaphor to look at the model in 2 different perspectives and secondly because the models I.F projection on primary subject is the metaphor essence. The statement is therefore threefold it is mathematical and we can therefore only use the relevant mathematical rule, it also either be wrong or true and finally the interpretation incorporates mathematical implications. It is evident that when the catalog correspondence is actually natural then implications too are natural. On the other hand CC is an assertion that is metaphorical, therefore the interpretation can only come out plainly true ONLY to the level that we are willing to accept that CC is plainly valid.
Interpretation and hypothesis testing (Ravenhill 60)
My claim (Null Hypothesis) the higher the level of work target, the higher the wages
Hypothesis 1 the higher the level of work target, the lower or the wages remain constant (meaning that if we dont experience the hypothesis one above we reject this hypothesis and its theory). On the other side if we experience the relationship mentioned in hypothesis one then we accept the theory.
In this hypothesis Data is collected from the feakonomics web blog. Decisions which are obtained concerning the behaviors that can be observed counts as a case of theoretical concept are in most cases arbitrary. Two problems exist here data and theory disconnect and observed situation questionable re-organization. A regression is test is done to find the hypothesis on the two problems. If we get a negative result the hypothesis is definitely rejected or claim that the tees was not done properly, there must have been some faults during the test. In case the test gives positive results, we conclude that maybe the theory of or the hypothesis is correct. Positive results may also be because of bad data collection or bad reorganization or non sensual reorganization.
Another example of interpretation and hypothesis testing on the omenssigns study (the ancient Roman Augury)
Hypothesis 1 Emperor will not die until 5 years from now.
Hypothesis 2 The opposite.
At the end of the five years, he dies (real outcome after five years expire) the big question here is how do we interpret the outcome Compare this kind of phenomenon to political science situation on the regime longevity prediction. Using economic data and demographics to analyze this will give a prediction with survival chance of 95.
Lets take the Augurs theory, Gods governs the world, omens reveals his state of minds and actions. According to the theory of political scientists, politics is actually a mathematical order.. Assuming that all these theories were 90 right for the last 10 years, interpreting testing results that are perceived to be good as the goodness theory evidence, need a belief in the CC goodness. On interpreting this phenomenon, Epistemology and Ontology issues come in.
This is to basically cover the actual argument question, adequate justification and how one can actually needed justification. The ontology subject is the taxi medallion argument, people try to justify whether the government should live alone this sector of the economy for it to continue operating on its own without regulations, others argue for government regulations on the taxi industry through the medallion system of the government. The question or rather the economic facts behind this argument are basically the economic impacts of non-regulation and the economic impacts of government regulation which one holds more water This is the fundamental argument and analysis behind the essay. The analysis use the methods listed above to determine which of the two arguments according to the individuals perceptions or the feelings in their minds on the issue.
The elements of science in the initial analysis on discourse possibility would be basically based on difference in disputes levels and the loss magnitudes in each case that is for pro-medallion argument and the anti-medallion argument. The government will be the structured pursuit in the science element, the actual facts on the ground, and how justification can be met in both stances. It should come out clear at this point that the argument is a perception on illegality of the government regulation on the taxis, one can feel that it is legal while the other will suggest that it is legal and should therefore be regulated.
The Pro-Medallions Claim
The anti-medallion argues that lack of control on these taxi systems would mean congestion in the cities. Congestions have direct negative impact on a countrys production and ultimately the economy. There is also an argument that the government would charge a lot on licensing, taxation among others making it very expensive for the taxi operators (Robert 200).
The pro-medallion ontology
The facts listed below are the facts on the ground on the argument for controlled government regulation. They give the right characterization of the argument in the actual field rather than the arguments sampled from the blog.
It is actually a fact that the city is being congested by too much taxi operating in the city center.
The city congestion have direct negative impact on the economy slow movement into and outside the city which slows down the rate of transportation of goods and services in the stores, slow down in general economic production level of labor among others
the government cannot live some sensitive sectors of the economy like transport to under the control of the private sector or for the free market systems
The tourists dependence on taxi transport is not a long term economic benefit in the long run it becomes bureaucratic. Decongesting the city streets would actually improve an economys GDP drastically.
Truly we cannot argue for city congestions by the taxis to add any economic value.
It is justifiable that the government is the only genuine source of convention in sensitive matters than any other institution. To find the government as necessary we should refer to the government legislation laws, rules and regulations and above all the constitution putting all the sensitive matters like security to the government intervention (Robert 305).
On the analysis derived from the above, it is clear that epistemology and methodology are driven by ontology. The fact that the government is the controller of all sensitive matter relating to the country means that the taxi issue can only be solved by the government. Therefore to find a better solution to this, we must look to the government for intervention, the constitution, laws and regulations must be referred to give appropriate way forward ( Todd 43, 99-102).
The Anti-Medallion Claim
The pro-medallions claims that the current world fully or partly depends on the taxi systems, for transport especially by the tourist visiting country and they are not budgeting to buy their own cars for transportation in the foreign country due to saving on costs. This group of people has to be negatively impacted if the taxi sector is rather wiped out. The backbone thought of the anti-medallion argument was basically on sympathy, or sympathetic arguments for the agenda that it is simply unfair to the taxi operators who put a lot of efforts in their work.
The anti-medallion ontology is rather not the actual picture existing in the field out there. The argument or feeling of sympathy controls everything that the anti-medallion will use to put all his arguments for war (Patricia 334). The tourists are currently not 100 dependent on the taxi system of transportation, they have organized their transportation with the various tourists agents that manages almost all of other affairs including efficient and effective transportation, and this renders the tourists argument redundant. Furthermore there seem to be a bundle in the Epistemology and the Methodology, the government regulation in fact does not exist here, it is more a methodology than it is to ontology.
Anti-medallion Epistemology and methodology
What is considered knowledge here is the justification by sympathy on the taxi people operators and to a low extant the free market, there is no government intervention in this argument. The source of knowledge here is weak the law of demand and supply should be given a chance to take control of the situation which is already a problem to the economy. The methodology of pro-medallion argument is a free market which is basically a natural science. The theory of free market generates a hypothesis which is falsifiable and compares hypothesis predictions in a graph or chart analysis (Matsuda 55).
The Anti-Medallion Ontology
The actual facts on the ground that is we cannot predict the outcomes in the end of everything, that is to say there are two positions congestions in the cities are actually not a problem, the system of impacts of free markets application on the taxi system may or may not be economical in the long run. There is actually agnostic limitation on perception in the anti-medallion that all the economical aspects must be driven by the law of supply and demand, a free market economy.
The significant part of the above analyses lies in the comparison of the two elements, the pro-medallion and the anti-medallion argument as in figure 1 below.
At this stage of the analysis it is vital to raise the questions like should regulation of the taxis exist or not, are there special and unique occurrences in the economy at some times Is the government intervention definitive are there other ways of intervention better than the government What is the importance of analyzing empirical sources of evidence And lastly what factors can we consider in classifying an argument as convincing
in this discussion discourse is possible in ontology level for example it not contradicting in real sense when I espouse that the government say is final on all issues concerning the economy. But it is a no on the Methodology and Epistemology because there is no authoritative answer to the argument because illegality is a formation of the mind furthermore we dont have a way to adjudicate the differences.
This brings us to the analysis and understanding of ontology, Epistemology and Methodology in the context of Rationalism Versus Empiricism and finally Induction and Deduction analysis tools. The guiding factor in our belief here is the scientific approach of economics stud are earlier beliefs about the epistemology and ontology for example trust in the government Empiricism versus Rationalism.
according to Francis Bacon, on Empires approach, the mind cannot be set free from the daily influences from the experiences and that it is not possible to abstract from all the daily experiences, we should therefore innovate ways for appropriately using experience. We should therefore use experience in situations like the taxi medallion issue to investigate the situations involved and get a proper understanding of the situation (Northoff 33). we can therefore allocate the resources of the government in regulating the taxi industry, and economics is the right subject that does such scientifically studies, they have used the right experiences, principles in generating and governance of the experience, and it is obviously in a perfectible competitive market. In the experiments we can see that government regulations are directly correlated to the performance of the economy in the sectors, we can therefore reach the principle through induction all government regulations on poorly performing sectors increases production and therefore numerous spillover effects (Freedman 56-90). We can also test the principle since when we encounter a GDP reduction.
The big question or rather the puzzle is how to make sense of such a difficult phenomenon, we should in some way categorize the involved elements and come up with relationships or dynamics, we can therefore talk about the science of sympathy. Sympathy and incomprehension are associated thoughts, is there science of determining sympathy and incomprehension, and is it necessary. Rationalization can only be characterized as in outside, rational reconstruction and positive. How do we quantify sympathy then, through analysis (statistical), stories according to the experiences we have In the rationalist approach we interpret observations properly through life principles and rearranging into relationships and categories in our principles. On the other hand the empiricist approach came up with a theory from our life experiences, formulate the hypothesis and finally test it. the empiricist explanation is the identification of viable correlation occurring between the phenomenon ontology (phenomenon specification and the epistemology, methodology- relationship test and specification. according to the empiricist explanation sympathy could be on the category of the rich and the poor, the rich would not sympathize with the taxi drivers but would rather be comprehensive while the poor class would have sympathy on them (Westwood 66-67).