Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Praxeology rejects empiricism, falsifiability, and formal analysis in its approach. Its a textbook example of a pseudoscience so you are correct in that it should not be controversial; it should be universally seen as the dreck it is.
*"[Praxeology's] statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification and falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts. They are a necessary requirement of any intellectual grasp of historical events."*
-Ludwig Von Mises
I see nothing wrong with this? Is Mises not saying that the axiom that praxeology relies on is deduced logically (similar to “I think, therefore I am”)? This doesn’t seem to address anything but the “statements” and “propositions,” which I assume is the foundational axioms.
If i’m misinterpreting this, please let me know!
You don't see a problem with a belief system based on just "logic" and never looking at what actually happens or uses evidence? Praxeology is a pseudoscience and isn't worthy of being taken into consideration.
That's not what I said. As I said in the post, I do not reject empiricism, in fact, I often use it.
I am saying that Mises seems to be talking about the foundational axioms; that I have no issue with.
Praxeology rejects empiricism, that's the problem with it among many other things. It employs a reverse scientific method: come to a conclusion, then find reasons why it's true.
We are back to square one: how does praxeology reject empiricism? It seems to me that praxeology does not reject empiricism but rather Austrians, using praxeology, reject empiricism.
Again, *you* not rejecting empiricism does not mean praxeology does not. Praxeology treats its axioms as priori and rejects falsification. It's been the case since before the Austrian school.
Numerous scholars have criticized it for doing so and have warned against it being a pseudoscience for exactly this reason.
I don't think that Praxeology is useless, but I do think that it's generally had more success in the philosophy of language and ethics than it has had in economics. Habermas is a well-regarded philosopher who was one of the successors of that school of thought, IIRC.
One broad problem is that when discussing economics, we're often interested in system-level dynamics, and it's quite difficult to model complex dynamics with forward deduction from agent axioms. There have been attempts to do such things in fields like AI or robotics using various types of formal logics, but to generally inferior results compared to state-based models.
Cool OP and I don’t know anything about Mises.
What I don’t get is? Is there any type of behavior that isn’t “purposeful’ and if not then why do we care?
Why not just call it all behavior???
> Is there any type of behavior that isn’t “purposeful’ and if not then why do we care?
Reflexive behavior and base instincts don't fall within the category of purposeful action
> Human action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego's meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment, is a person's conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life. Such paraphrases may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself is adequate and does not need complement of commentary.
> Conscious or purposeful behavior is in sharp contrast to unconscious behavior, i.e., the reflexes and the involuntary responses of the body's cells and nerves to stimuli. People are sometimes prepared to believe that the boundaries between conscious behavior and the involuntary reaction of the forces operating within man's body are more or less indefinite. This is correct only as far as it is sometimes not easy to establish whether concrete behavior is to be considered voluntary or involuntary. But the distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness is nonetheless sharp and can be clearly determined.
> The unconscious behavior of the bodily organs and cells is for the acting ego no less a datum than any other fact of the external world. Acting man must take into account all that goes on within his own body as well as other data, e.g., the weather or the attitudes of his neighbors. There is, of course, a margin within which purposeful behavior has the power to neutralize the working of bodily factors. It is feasible within certain limits to get the body under control. Man can sometimes succeed through the power of his will in overcoming sickness, in compensating for the innate or acquired insufficiency of his physical constitution, or in suppressing reflexes. As far as this is possible, the field of purposeful action is extended. If a man abstains from controlling the involuntary reaction of cells and nerve centers, although he would be in a position to do so, his behavior is from our point of view purposeful.
(Human Action, Chapter I. (Acting Man), section 1 (Purposeful Action and Animal Reaction)
The distinction is important as purposeful behavior means that people do things for a reason, they consciously choose (subjectively) better alternatives and discriminate against worse ones, for instance. In mainstream economics, human action is usually not taken into account. Mathematical models are presented and a change in variable x allegedly leads to a change in product y, but the causal mechanisms are nowhere to be seen. By examining situations praxeologically, things like predictive statements can be analyzed, incl. whether a policy is likely to have its desired or proclaimed effects.
Interesting and I would say that accounts almost then all behavior. From those passages I would not extend base instincts necessarily unless the person is unconscious but that is me even then extrapolating. Base instincts (e.g., hunger, thirst, sex) are not addressed. You could argue some are under ‘reflexes’. I would have to look them up but there are reflexes associated with our drives (e.g., swallowing).
Anyway, I really appreciate the sourcing, quote and explanation.
> I would say that accounts almost then all behavior
That's what the Austrian economists are trying to do - to derive some meaningful conclusions from some obvious observations and some very basic assumptions about all human behavior.
I'm reading Rothbard right now, and I have to say I am pretty surprised how far you can go without any experimental data at all. At some point you realize experimental data can be much less obvious and much more open to interpretation than the praxeologically derived conclusions.
It's a pretty compelling argument that economics is more like math than physics. You interpret the economic data through the lens of a basic economic theory, not use the data to derive basic economics.
>At some point you realize experimental data can be much less obvious and much more open to interpretation than the praxeologically derived conclusions.
It isn't necessarily a good thing to take the approach that produces an obvious, concrete conclusion.
>You interpret the economic data through the lens of a basic economic theory, not use the data to derive basic economics.
It goes both ways - the experimentation/observation aspect of science is informed by theories, and theories are in turn informed by experimentation/observation.
You don't normally adjust math based on an experiment though. Instead, you use math to even start making sense of the experiment. And yeah, math usually produces obvious, concrete conclusions. It's a good thing that it does.
Of course economics is less obvious because it's related to human action, and humans are very difficult to predict or even describe.
> Of course economics is less obvious because it's related to human action, and humans are very difficult to predict or even describe.
My feeling on this is that the 21st century is demonstrating to us that we are less difficult to predict than previously supposed.
When I was a student, the frontier was that while large marketplaces were fairly straightforward to predict, individual behavior could always represent an outlier, and so be substantially more challenging to predict. But now, the entire big data industry is demonstrating that perhaps it was within reach after all. Apparently, given enough data, and sophisticated enough algorithms, BBC reported in 2017, that FB can predict our individual preferences with about as much accuracy as your spouse can. And 2017 was generations ago, when it comes to AI and ML technologies.
> he distinction is important as purposeful behavior means that people do things for a reason, they consciously choose (subjectively) better alternatives and discriminate against worse ones, for instance. In mainstream economics, human action is usually not taken into account.
Comes across as the sort of thing which would be explicitly challenged by behavior econ and behavioral finance, writ large.
> Mathematical models are presented and a change in variable x allegedly leads to a change in product y, but the causal mechanisms are nowhere to be seen.
Disagree. One of the things that actually gets modeled within econ using formal mathematical modeling is preferences and selection. There is also econometrics for preferences and selection (for example logit and probit models).
In my field (venture capital finance), investor-selection is one of the main sorts of economic preference that gets examined using both formal modeling and logit & probit models.
> *Human action*, [unlike those types of human
behavior that are purely reflex, that are simply involuntary
responses to certain stimuli], can be *meaningfully interpreted* by other men, for it is
governed by a certain *purpose* that the actor has in view. The
purpose of a man’s act is his *end*; the desire to achieve this
end is the man’s *motive* for instituting the action.
> All human beings *act* by virtue of their existence and their
nature as human beings. We could not conceive of human
beings who do not act purposefully, who have no ends in view
that they desire and attempt to attain. Things that did not *act*,
that did not behave purposefully, would no longer be classified
as human.
(Rothbard, *Man, Economy, and State*, ch. 1 (Fundamentals of Human Action), section 1 (The Concept of Action))
> In order to institute action, it is not sufficient that the individual man have unachieved ends that he would like to fulfill. *He
must also expect that certain modes of behavior will enable him to attain
his ends.* A man may have a desire for sunshine, but if he realizes
that he can do nothing to achieve it, he does not act on this desire.
He must have certain *ideas* about how to achieve his ends. Action
thus consists of the behavior of individuals directed towards ends
in ways that they believe will accomplish their purpose. Action
requires an image of a desired end and “technological ideas” or
plans on how to arrive at this end.
> [The] individual actor is faced with an environment that he would like to
change in order to attain his ends. To act, he must have technological ideas about how to use some of the elements of the environment as means, as pathways, to arrive at his ends. Every act
must therefore involve the employment of means by individual
actors to attempt to arrive at certain desired ends. [...]
(*ibid.*, section 2 (First Implications of the Concept))
I know you’ve already got a thorough answer but I’ve always said that purposeful behavior is action that involves a choice. I’m pretty sure this encapsulates all behavior that Mises thought was purposeful.
Please let me know if this is faulty argumentation but if human action involves a choice, wouldn't all action be purposeful? I either do nothing, do *this*, do *this*, etc (I HAVE to make a choice).
I am not well-educated in human psychology so I am definitely open to learning more!
im confused, can you cite some actual source about humans making choices reflexively as you claim, rather than someone with brain damage rationalizing choices, which doesn’t support your argument. Rational actions include subconscious actions, like when you play piano, but you’re not actively thinking about every note you play. Reflexive actions are different in that they’re done without you even thinking about the process of doing it, like your body “betraying you”, like closing your eyes when a loud sound happens even though you want to keep them open.
It’s a serious claim to say that you can make decisions as spinal reflexes. It would change anatomy as we know it, and it just sounds absurd, I’m guessing the book would cite a source for that? Otherwise it seems as if you’re confusing the concepts of subconscious with reflexes. Subconscious actions are affected by things that we learn and can consciously affect, closest I would think of actions you can’t control is something like Tourette’s, but for the majority of people, they can control the actions they take, and besides from Tics, people with Tourette’s can still control their actions. This is what divides actions from reflexes, not whether you do it consciously or unconsciously. If you can’t physically avoid an action if you wanted to avoid it, it’s a reflex.
The thing is that you can’t logically derive anything interesting from the fact that people act. So praxeologists use fake logic to reach conclusions they like and pretend it’s logic.
“If you deny that action is purposeful, you would be acting purposefully.” Yes, on the existential reading of the sentence. Nobody denies that purposeful action exists.
Your argument that conflict exists doesn’t follow from the assumption that people sometimes act purposefully. You need some auxiliary assumptions, some of which you provided. But it would also not be interesting if praxeology could prove that conflict exists. It’s a really uncontroversial, obvious truth. For a theory tone useful it should provide some insight into something.
>Your argument that conflict exists doesn’t follow from the assumption that people sometimes act purposefully. You need some auxiliary assumptions, some of which you provided. But it would also not be interesting if praxeology could prove that conflict exists. It’s a really uncontroversial, obvious truth. For a theory tone useful it should provide some insight into something.
It is a paper against moral relativism, lots of people find that interesting. Also, what auxiliary assumptions am I missing?
Whether moral relativism is good or not could be interesting. If praxeology could be used to make a good argument about it, I would change my assessment of praxeology.
Auxiliary assumptions: I’m sure it could be done a bunch of ways. Here’s one.
You assumed that action involves a choice.
If you assume:
There are more than one human, and
A human’s choices inevitably supports actions that aggravate other humans, and
Aggravation between people inevitably causes conflict.
Then you can validly deduce the existence of conflict.
>and I am not an anarcho-capitalist.
Stopped reading here. Do better.
On a serious note, praxis is like free will. In order to deny it one has to have it so yeah humans may not have totally scientific cosmic free will but we do have it in our everyday lives and we always assume humans have free will when we make laws and rules. That's self evident. So for the practical reasons we do have free will and similarly praxeology is useful tool.
Not sure why you stopped reading. Every time I bring up praxeology, people assume I am an anarcho-capitalist, which I am not (I am not saying anarcho-capitalism isn't right, I just simply don't know enough to call myself one, I am trying to learn). Do better.
Thank you for the latter half of your comment!
Praxeology is supposed to be something like logic. Mainstream economists use mathematics, which is quite different from praxeology. I do not think this helps understand capitalist economies, but Debreu's [Theory of Value](https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2022-09/m17-all.pdf) is an example of an axiomatic reasoning applied to economics. Von Mises does not logically deduce his theory from the single axiom, human's act, in any meaningful way.
> Praxeology is supposed to be something like logic.
Not something like, it is logic.
>Mainstream economists use mathematics, which is quite different from praxeology.
Austrian economists use math, they just openly outline the fundamental logic and assumptions that go into their models.
Yeah, i’ve always been confused about what Austrian economists believe in (i’ve got different responses).
Is it a fair to say Austrian economists don’t believe in empirical data or rather that they believe in empirical data but with skepticism?
> that they believe in empirical data but with skepticism?
Austrians aren't skeptical about data, they're skeptical about people.
Ex: assumptions in economic models. Assumptions are opinions.
>Von Mises does not logically deduce his theory from the single axiom, human's act, in any meaningful way.
Would you be able to expand on this? Thank you!
Sometimes high school teachers try to present Euclidean geometry as logical deductions from axioms. Usually the presentations are rough.
Do you know the distinction between the propositional calculus and predicate logic? Truth tables? what it means to say that a total order is complete, reflexive, antisymmetric, and transitive? Von Mises does not make any use of mathematical logic. And his praxeology cannot be put in this form.
Ok, so people can act with purpose. I don't think anyone really disagrees, there. *Why* they act as they do is clearly unknowable and subjective. But *that* people act with purpose can be taken prima face
So then... what's your point? How does this relate to capitalism vs socialism?
Praxeology is seen to be exclusive to capitalism. I’ve seen quite a few individuals claim praxeology to be false on the basis that they aren’t a capitalism, essentially. So what i’m arguing is that praxeology is not exclusive to Austrian economics but rather a framework that can benefit many other areas of economics, ethics, etc.
I have yet to hear someone other than an anarcho-capitalist mention praxeology.
Let me clarify that I do not think praxeology is exclusive to capitalism; rather, I think it’s perceived that way.
Ok.
So… then I don’t get what your stance is.
Are you saying that praxeology exists in that people definitely do act on purpose as opposed to instinct, but the models Austrians claim they derived from their methodology are not universally true as Austrians would have you believe?
Or are you saying that their models are true but it’s not relevant in some way? What’s your *take*?
>Are you saying that praxeology exists in that people definitely do act on purpose as opposed to instinct, but the models Austrians claim they derived from their methodology are not universally true as Austrians would have you believe?
Yeah, sure.
I think the idea of deriving all of economics from praxeology is absurd; it's not difficult to understand why empiricism is useful.
In that case, I agree, although I would go so far as to say that praxeology itself has only marginal use generally. Most of the conclusions made via praxeological methods by Austrian do not follow logically. For example, the notion that scarce means are necessary for action.
The basic idea is that if there exists superabundance of something, then it is not used as a means of action, which if true, logically would follow that if all things were superabundant no action would occur, because if the means are superabundant, the goal would already be achieved
I think that praxeology risks being economists attempting macropsychology. I think that one should look into psychoneuroendocrinology and its associated fields *before* attempting to deriving psychological conclusions from economic data and novel observation.
That's true; though I'm not sure if behavioral economics has a lot of neuroendocrinology in it yet. We don't really have the research finished yet, AFAIK.
>The laws in which praxeology arrive at are undeniable as any attempt to deny it must prove it to be true (if you deny that action is purposeful, you would be acting purposefully.
The trouble here is that this is just an example of purposeful human action, not proof that human behavior is universally purposeful. The negation of *P => Q* is *P and not Q* which is just a fancy way of saying that if P is true and Q is not, P => Q is false. If P => Q is a "for all" statement, then the negation is a "for some" statement, meaning that all you have to do to disprove it is find an example where P is true and Q is not.
Can you think of an example of human action not being purposeful?
>It seems self-evident that man acts purposefully
You don't have to dig into cognitive science too deeply to realize that this isn't the case.
>praxeology states that all human action is purposeful; action involves a choice; choice is subjective to the actor's values/preferences; therefore, conflict exists.
Most models of decision making have two types/systems/modes of decision making - one that involves a deliberate effort to reason ones way to a choice, and another that is based on heuristics, habit, emotion, etc. In my mind, this makes it hard to argue that choice is what makes an action purposeful.
>Can you think of an example of human action not being purposeful?
Human action would be any behavior that involves a choice. In understanding this, I can't think of any human action that is NOT purposeful.
>Most models of decision making have two types/systems/modes of decision making - one that involves a deliberate effort to reason ones way to a choice, and another that is based on heuristics.
Heuristic behavior it's still driven by the actor's values and preferences, albeit in a more implicit or automatic way.
>Human action would be any behavior that involves a choice. In understanding this, I can't think of any human action that is NOT purposeful.
>Heuristic behavior it's still driven by the actor's values and preferences, albeit in a more implicit or automatic way.
I mean this really gets into the semantics of action, choice, values, preferences, and purpose. Philosophically, you could define action as behavior caused by an actor's intention in a particular situation, as opposed to an involuntary response. Under this definition you could argue that not all behaviors involving choice are actions - heuristic decisions are often sub-conscious and sometimes contrary to our intentions. Preferences/values can come into play with System 1 (heuristic) decision making, but aren't what we theorize drive it - rather it's the fact that our ability to make fully rational decisions is constrained.
I guess my question is: how do you define purposeful? If you take it to mean intentional, "purposeful human behavior" is synonymous with action (at least in the way I've defined it), but I suppose that's why there's a 90 page Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the meaning of "action". There are a ton of differing views on how intention and acting relate to one another. For example:
>A second alternative sees intentional explanations as teleological rather than causal explanations (Wilson 1980; Cleveland 1997; Schueler 2003; Sehon 2005); that is, an intentional explanation cites the goal, the purpose, or the reason for which the agent acted *rather than* the antecedent causes of the action. Defenders of this view also try to provide an understanding of the teleological structure of intentional action that denies that teleological explanations reduce to causal explanations; they are instead a *sui generis* form of explanation.
This sort of aligns with what I remember learning about system 1 decision, that many of them are made before we're even consciously aware of making them, and are often an attempt to explain why they've been made. It also makes me wonder what role concepts from Eastern Philosophy plays in the discussion - acting without acting (wu wei) is a matter of acting in a matter that is neither involuntary nor purposeful. I guess my sticking point is not knowing precisely how these concepts are approached in Praxeology. I know a great deal about how human behavior is approached outside of it, and wonder where they align and diverge.
Anyways, thanks for engaging. I have more questions than opinions, and find this shit fascinating.
Yeah, this is definitely more complex than I would have thought originally.
I am trying to come up with a thoughtful response but there is so much to talk about that I am not sure where to even start, lol!
I’ll look into this more, you’ve definitely challenged my original view. Thank you!
I tend to agree with Hayek's position on it. The insistent apriorism and rationalism is just goofy. Social sciences are studies of complex phenomena. There is no deductive reasoning that can contend with the innumerable factors involved.
Though it's an entirely different area, this was always my problem with Hegelian and Marxian dialectics, even when I agreed with that shit. We have a set of truisms and banalities about history and materialism and the dialectical interaction of opposites. We take our highly multifarious and complex, even chaotic, phenomenon that is the historical development of human society. We carefully select two elements within that we define as the opposites so that we have the conflict we want to describe. We engage in a gross oversimplification and removal of the innumerable other factors we have conveniently ignored and voila! We have found our prime mover of historical events.
One tactic that is common to both, however, is that when the various reductive simplifications and assumptions are questioned, you just dishonestly pretend like the truisms are being disputed.
The other problem with the Austrian field is that their rupture with the empiricists and the mathematical economists really happened before the full development of the statistical methods utilized in modern econometrics; they never kept up and neither did their assessment of the methodological rigor in the field. Honestly, these days, it seems to be the refuge of the BA Econ kids who don't want to take any more math classes.
> How can this be wrong? ... praxeology states that all human action is purposeful;
Because not all human action is purposeful. Most of the time we don't know why we did something other than we felt like it at the time.
"Felt like it" seems to fall into purpose category. Just because you are unable to articulate it doesn't mean you did not have purpose. Unless you sleep walking. That may be it
Everything everyone does on purpose they do in order to serve their own personal self interest which is dictated by them subjectively.
This includes addicts, terrorists, and the poor.
Neoclassically-trained financial economist here,
IMO, the primary beef mainstream Chicago types have with praxx is that it comes across as an attempt to sidestep the typical research process, which is typically:
1. Narrative explanation / investigation
2. Formal theoretical modeling of step 1 (i.e., using calculus)
3. Empirical investigation of step 2 (i.e., using stats and econometrics).
Also...
> It seems self-evident that man acts purposefully, outside of any economic bias.
"Seems self-evident" is not sufficient. If anything, OP should know that Behavioral Economics is a sizable body of published research, with 2 Nobel prizes behind it (that come to mind at the moment), which explicitly disagree with this idea, and/or validity of economic theory derived primarily by this idea.
Fundamentally, the findings of behavioral econ is that predictable irrationality is a thing, that information and its perception / assimilation are different things, and that action taken and action intended (or even action understood) are different things. Predictably and measurably so.
Economics is not a hard physical science and you can’t treat it as such.
There is no laboratory to conduct economics experiments.
There are no physical constants, there are no control groups.
Every person makes their own choices based other own subjective values.
There is too much complex phenomena to make statements of fact about any piece of economic data.
You cannot show cause an effect from a scientific data standpoint because you cannot possible measure everything every human being buys, sells and wants to buy or sell.
Economics has to be A priori because it can’t be anything else .
Anyone who tells you they have measure the economy is trying to sell you something
I'm very highly sceptical of any ideological framework that rejects empirical evidence. While I do think empirical evidence is sometimes overblown in terms of importance. It is still really quite important. Being like ohhhh we don't need to really prove our ideas! Yeah pretty sus.
On top of that, it feels very: work backwards. People act with reason, yeah of course. But then to extrapolate that into, ancapism. I feel we've missed a fair few steps in the argument.
>I'm very highly sceptical of any ideological framework that rejects empirical evidence. While I do think empirical evidence is sometimes overblown in terms of importance.
I love empirical evidence except when it shows that communism doesn't work lmfao.
>See? Commies hate logic and hate empiricism but they LOVE sophistry and emotional language.
It seems like the MO of anCaps is to talk about logic and empiricism rather than use it.
The only sensible thing to do is build a Foundation on a remote planet, to preserve safeguard human knowledge during the dark ages that follow the inevitable collapse of galactic order.
> I'm very highly sceptical of any ideological framework that rejects empirical evidence.
It literally doesn't.
>While I do think empirical evidence is sometimes overblown in terms of importance
The issue is attempting to use empirical evidence to assert you know how the future will unfold.
Also, economic analysis is not experimentation.
>Being like ohhhh we don't need to really prove our ideas! Yeah pretty sus.
Again, not what Austrian economics asserts.
>On top of that, it feels very: work backwards.
How it feels is irrelevant. Austrians critique assumptions.
>But then to extrapolate that into, ancapism.
Whiteboard it.
I mean what value does a non-empiricist theory even bring to the table. It's basically just singling out actions that you deem vital to your explanation on human behavior while simply ignoring anything that would oppose this theory because you deem economy non-empirical.
Like I get the criticism about the difficulty of empirical analysis in economics but at the same time just throwing it completely overboard is enabling pseudo-science.
>I mean what value does a non-empiricist theory even bring to the table.
It's not non-empiricist. Once again Austrians critique the initial assumption in models.
>while simply ignoring anything that would oppose this theory
What exact theory are you speaking about? That humans act with purpose?
> just throwing it completely overboard is enabling pseudo-science.
Austrians don't do that.
Austrians essentially propose a model and then explain it with exemplary evidence while dismissing anything opposing that model with the idea that empiricism is impracticable. Essentially arguing that a narrow assumption is evidence enough.
But again that's not really proposing anything solid. Most of the time is finally not all the time even if Austrian really believe it is.
>It literally doesn't.
>The issue is attempting to use empirical evidence to assert you know how the future will unfold.
?
That's...rejection of empirical evidence dude? You can predict economic activity based off empirical evidence?
No, it's a rejection of the interpretation of the empirical evidence.
Here's is a bunch of data:
1. MMTer: it means this!
2. Austrian: it doesn't mean that.
Socialist/communist: Austrians reject evidence!!!
Jesus.
>Austrian School economists, following Mises, use praxeology and deduction, rather than empirical studies, to determine economic principles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology
Yes you are misunderstanding it. It is gibberish ; it is an attempt to have a philosophical foundation on which to base your economic philosophy. Socialism just killed 120000,000 people while capitalism is so natural that our genius founding fathers never considered other economic arrangements. no philosophy is necessary for economics. You just count the dead people
Yeah, no philosophy is necessary for economics. Why should you have to base your economic philosophy on a philosophical foundation? The founding fathers certainly had no philosophical education, did they? They must have been as poorly read as you.
I'm sure whomever taught you to read or write must regret it.
if you disagree with something that was said try to think of a reason for the disagreement and then try to present it here in writing. Do you understand that a reason was necessary????
Things would be a bit different if people like you finished school with a passable understanding of the philosophies that inspired the founding fathers.
But this is precisely what i’m asking: how is it gibberish? It seems to me that praxeology is undeniably true whether someone thinks Austrian economics is superior or not.
Also, praxeology is not exclusive to economics; it’s a useful framework for all sorts of branches of philosophy.
don't be silly everybody claims their philosophy is a useful framework. This is capitalism versus socialism . The real issue is 120,000,000 dead people versus zero dead people.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Praxeology rejects empiricism, falsifiability, and formal analysis in its approach. Its a textbook example of a pseudoscience so you are correct in that it should not be controversial; it should be universally seen as the dreck it is.
How does praxeology reject empiricism?
*"[Praxeology's] statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification and falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts. They are a necessary requirement of any intellectual grasp of historical events."* -Ludwig Von Mises
I see nothing wrong with this? Is Mises not saying that the axiom that praxeology relies on is deduced logically (similar to “I think, therefore I am”)? This doesn’t seem to address anything but the “statements” and “propositions,” which I assume is the foundational axioms. If i’m misinterpreting this, please let me know!
You don't see a problem with a belief system based on just "logic" and never looking at what actually happens or uses evidence? Praxeology is a pseudoscience and isn't worthy of being taken into consideration.
That's not what I said. As I said in the post, I do not reject empiricism, in fact, I often use it. I am saying that Mises seems to be talking about the foundational axioms; that I have no issue with.
Praxeology rejects empiricism, that's the problem with it among many other things. It employs a reverse scientific method: come to a conclusion, then find reasons why it's true.
We are back to square one: how does praxeology reject empiricism? It seems to me that praxeology does not reject empiricism but rather Austrians, using praxeology, reject empiricism.
Again, *you* not rejecting empiricism does not mean praxeology does not. Praxeology treats its axioms as priori and rejects falsification. It's been the case since before the Austrian school. Numerous scholars have criticized it for doing so and have warned against it being a pseudoscience for exactly this reason.
What is wrong with its axioms being a priori? The usage of its axioms should be of much more concern.
I don't think that Praxeology is useless, but I do think that it's generally had more success in the philosophy of language and ethics than it has had in economics. Habermas is a well-regarded philosopher who was one of the successors of that school of thought, IIRC. One broad problem is that when discussing economics, we're often interested in system-level dynamics, and it's quite difficult to model complex dynamics with forward deduction from agent axioms. There have been attempts to do such things in fields like AI or robotics using various types of formal logics, but to generally inferior results compared to state-based models.
Cool OP and I don’t know anything about Mises. What I don’t get is? Is there any type of behavior that isn’t “purposeful’ and if not then why do we care? Why not just call it all behavior???
> Is there any type of behavior that isn’t “purposeful’ and if not then why do we care? Reflexive behavior and base instincts don't fall within the category of purposeful action
Is this according to Mises or you? Sincerely and if so how does that play in the role of economics then? Again sincerely
> Human action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego's meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment, is a person's conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life. Such paraphrases may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself is adequate and does not need complement of commentary. > Conscious or purposeful behavior is in sharp contrast to unconscious behavior, i.e., the reflexes and the involuntary responses of the body's cells and nerves to stimuli. People are sometimes prepared to believe that the boundaries between conscious behavior and the involuntary reaction of the forces operating within man's body are more or less indefinite. This is correct only as far as it is sometimes not easy to establish whether concrete behavior is to be considered voluntary or involuntary. But the distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness is nonetheless sharp and can be clearly determined. > The unconscious behavior of the bodily organs and cells is for the acting ego no less a datum than any other fact of the external world. Acting man must take into account all that goes on within his own body as well as other data, e.g., the weather or the attitudes of his neighbors. There is, of course, a margin within which purposeful behavior has the power to neutralize the working of bodily factors. It is feasible within certain limits to get the body under control. Man can sometimes succeed through the power of his will in overcoming sickness, in compensating for the innate or acquired insufficiency of his physical constitution, or in suppressing reflexes. As far as this is possible, the field of purposeful action is extended. If a man abstains from controlling the involuntary reaction of cells and nerve centers, although he would be in a position to do so, his behavior is from our point of view purposeful. (Human Action, Chapter I. (Acting Man), section 1 (Purposeful Action and Animal Reaction) The distinction is important as purposeful behavior means that people do things for a reason, they consciously choose (subjectively) better alternatives and discriminate against worse ones, for instance. In mainstream economics, human action is usually not taken into account. Mathematical models are presented and a change in variable x allegedly leads to a change in product y, but the causal mechanisms are nowhere to be seen. By examining situations praxeologically, things like predictive statements can be analyzed, incl. whether a policy is likely to have its desired or proclaimed effects.
Interesting and I would say that accounts almost then all behavior. From those passages I would not extend base instincts necessarily unless the person is unconscious but that is me even then extrapolating. Base instincts (e.g., hunger, thirst, sex) are not addressed. You could argue some are under ‘reflexes’. I would have to look them up but there are reflexes associated with our drives (e.g., swallowing). Anyway, I really appreciate the sourcing, quote and explanation.
> I would say that accounts almost then all behavior That's what the Austrian economists are trying to do - to derive some meaningful conclusions from some obvious observations and some very basic assumptions about all human behavior. I'm reading Rothbard right now, and I have to say I am pretty surprised how far you can go without any experimental data at all. At some point you realize experimental data can be much less obvious and much more open to interpretation than the praxeologically derived conclusions. It's a pretty compelling argument that economics is more like math than physics. You interpret the economic data through the lens of a basic economic theory, not use the data to derive basic economics.
>At some point you realize experimental data can be much less obvious and much more open to interpretation than the praxeologically derived conclusions. It isn't necessarily a good thing to take the approach that produces an obvious, concrete conclusion. >You interpret the economic data through the lens of a basic economic theory, not use the data to derive basic economics. It goes both ways - the experimentation/observation aspect of science is informed by theories, and theories are in turn informed by experimentation/observation.
You don't normally adjust math based on an experiment though. Instead, you use math to even start making sense of the experiment. And yeah, math usually produces obvious, concrete conclusions. It's a good thing that it does. Of course economics is less obvious because it's related to human action, and humans are very difficult to predict or even describe.
> Of course economics is less obvious because it's related to human action, and humans are very difficult to predict or even describe. My feeling on this is that the 21st century is demonstrating to us that we are less difficult to predict than previously supposed. When I was a student, the frontier was that while large marketplaces were fairly straightforward to predict, individual behavior could always represent an outlier, and so be substantially more challenging to predict. But now, the entire big data industry is demonstrating that perhaps it was within reach after all. Apparently, given enough data, and sophisticated enough algorithms, BBC reported in 2017, that FB can predict our individual preferences with about as much accuracy as your spouse can. And 2017 was generations ago, when it comes to AI and ML technologies.
> he distinction is important as purposeful behavior means that people do things for a reason, they consciously choose (subjectively) better alternatives and discriminate against worse ones, for instance. In mainstream economics, human action is usually not taken into account. Comes across as the sort of thing which would be explicitly challenged by behavior econ and behavioral finance, writ large. > Mathematical models are presented and a change in variable x allegedly leads to a change in product y, but the causal mechanisms are nowhere to be seen. Disagree. One of the things that actually gets modeled within econ using formal mathematical modeling is preferences and selection. There is also econometrics for preferences and selection (for example logit and probit models). In my field (venture capital finance), investor-selection is one of the main sorts of economic preference that gets examined using both formal modeling and logit & probit models.
I don’t understand this. Reflexes and instincts only exist because they serve a purpose. Or at least did serve a purpose at one point.
> *Human action*, [unlike those types of human behavior that are purely reflex, that are simply involuntary responses to certain stimuli], can be *meaningfully interpreted* by other men, for it is governed by a certain *purpose* that the actor has in view. The purpose of a man’s act is his *end*; the desire to achieve this end is the man’s *motive* for instituting the action. > All human beings *act* by virtue of their existence and their nature as human beings. We could not conceive of human beings who do not act purposefully, who have no ends in view that they desire and attempt to attain. Things that did not *act*, that did not behave purposefully, would no longer be classified as human. (Rothbard, *Man, Economy, and State*, ch. 1 (Fundamentals of Human Action), section 1 (The Concept of Action)) > In order to institute action, it is not sufficient that the individual man have unachieved ends that he would like to fulfill. *He must also expect that certain modes of behavior will enable him to attain his ends.* A man may have a desire for sunshine, but if he realizes that he can do nothing to achieve it, he does not act on this desire. He must have certain *ideas* about how to achieve his ends. Action thus consists of the behavior of individuals directed towards ends in ways that they believe will accomplish their purpose. Action requires an image of a desired end and “technological ideas” or plans on how to arrive at this end. > [The] individual actor is faced with an environment that he would like to change in order to attain his ends. To act, he must have technological ideas about how to use some of the elements of the environment as means, as pathways, to arrive at his ends. Every act must therefore involve the employment of means by individual actors to attempt to arrive at certain desired ends. [...] (*ibid.*, section 2 (First Implications of the Concept))
I know you’ve already got a thorough answer but I’ve always said that purposeful behavior is action that involves a choice. I’m pretty sure this encapsulates all behavior that Mises thought was purposeful.
That’s a pretty good short answer.
[удалено]
Please let me know if this is faulty argumentation but if human action involves a choice, wouldn't all action be purposeful? I either do nothing, do *this*, do *this*, etc (I HAVE to make a choice). I am not well-educated in human psychology so I am definitely open to learning more!
[удалено]
Thank you, I will look into this!
im confused, can you cite some actual source about humans making choices reflexively as you claim, rather than someone with brain damage rationalizing choices, which doesn’t support your argument. Rational actions include subconscious actions, like when you play piano, but you’re not actively thinking about every note you play. Reflexive actions are different in that they’re done without you even thinking about the process of doing it, like your body “betraying you”, like closing your eyes when a loud sound happens even though you want to keep them open.
[удалено]
It’s a serious claim to say that you can make decisions as spinal reflexes. It would change anatomy as we know it, and it just sounds absurd, I’m guessing the book would cite a source for that? Otherwise it seems as if you’re confusing the concepts of subconscious with reflexes. Subconscious actions are affected by things that we learn and can consciously affect, closest I would think of actions you can’t control is something like Tourette’s, but for the majority of people, they can control the actions they take, and besides from Tics, people with Tourette’s can still control their actions. This is what divides actions from reflexes, not whether you do it consciously or unconsciously. If you can’t physically avoid an action if you wanted to avoid it, it’s a reflex.
[удалено]
If the book had a relevant point, you’d be able to phrase it.
[удалено]
If you have nothing to say, it's better to say nothing. Again, if you have a point, you'd be able to write it.
The thing is that you can’t logically derive anything interesting from the fact that people act. So praxeologists use fake logic to reach conclusions they like and pretend it’s logic. “If you deny that action is purposeful, you would be acting purposefully.” Yes, on the existential reading of the sentence. Nobody denies that purposeful action exists. Your argument that conflict exists doesn’t follow from the assumption that people sometimes act purposefully. You need some auxiliary assumptions, some of which you provided. But it would also not be interesting if praxeology could prove that conflict exists. It’s a really uncontroversial, obvious truth. For a theory tone useful it should provide some insight into something.
>Your argument that conflict exists doesn’t follow from the assumption that people sometimes act purposefully. You need some auxiliary assumptions, some of which you provided. But it would also not be interesting if praxeology could prove that conflict exists. It’s a really uncontroversial, obvious truth. For a theory tone useful it should provide some insight into something. It is a paper against moral relativism, lots of people find that interesting. Also, what auxiliary assumptions am I missing?
Whether moral relativism is good or not could be interesting. If praxeology could be used to make a good argument about it, I would change my assessment of praxeology.
When I am done with my essay on it, I can send it to you!
I’ll read it.
Auxiliary assumptions: I’m sure it could be done a bunch of ways. Here’s one. You assumed that action involves a choice. If you assume: There are more than one human, and A human’s choices inevitably supports actions that aggravate other humans, and Aggravation between people inevitably causes conflict. Then you can validly deduce the existence of conflict.
>and I am not an anarcho-capitalist. Stopped reading here. Do better. On a serious note, praxis is like free will. In order to deny it one has to have it so yeah humans may not have totally scientific cosmic free will but we do have it in our everyday lives and we always assume humans have free will when we make laws and rules. That's self evident. So for the practical reasons we do have free will and similarly praxeology is useful tool.
Not sure why you stopped reading. Every time I bring up praxeology, people assume I am an anarcho-capitalist, which I am not (I am not saying anarcho-capitalism isn't right, I just simply don't know enough to call myself one, I am trying to learn). Do better. Thank you for the latter half of your comment!
Sorry for sneaky edit. I agree with your OP. Good topic.
Thank you!
He was joking about him being an ancap and being disappointed because you are not. I agree with him btw. Anarchocapitalism is the superior system.
Okay, yeah, I wasn’t sure if it was sarcasm or not!
Maybe you should act purposefully to recognize sarcasm and humor.
>Anarchocapitalism is the superior system. Its really not.
Praxeology is supposed to be something like logic. Mainstream economists use mathematics, which is quite different from praxeology. I do not think this helps understand capitalist economies, but Debreu's [Theory of Value](https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2022-09/m17-all.pdf) is an example of an axiomatic reasoning applied to economics. Von Mises does not logically deduce his theory from the single axiom, human's act, in any meaningful way.
> Praxeology is supposed to be something like logic. Not something like, it is logic. >Mainstream economists use mathematics, which is quite different from praxeology. Austrian economists use math, they just openly outline the fundamental logic and assumptions that go into their models.
Yeah, i’ve always been confused about what Austrian economists believe in (i’ve got different responses). Is it a fair to say Austrian economists don’t believe in empirical data or rather that they believe in empirical data but with skepticism?
> that they believe in empirical data but with skepticism? Austrians aren't skeptical about data, they're skeptical about people. Ex: assumptions in economic models. Assumptions are opinions.
>Von Mises does not logically deduce his theory from the single axiom, human's act, in any meaningful way. Would you be able to expand on this? Thank you!
Sometimes high school teachers try to present Euclidean geometry as logical deductions from axioms. Usually the presentations are rough. Do you know the distinction between the propositional calculus and predicate logic? Truth tables? what it means to say that a total order is complete, reflexive, antisymmetric, and transitive? Von Mises does not make any use of mathematical logic. And his praxeology cannot be put in this form.
Ok, so people can act with purpose. I don't think anyone really disagrees, there. *Why* they act as they do is clearly unknowable and subjective. But *that* people act with purpose can be taken prima face So then... what's your point? How does this relate to capitalism vs socialism?
Praxeology is seen to be exclusive to capitalism. I’ve seen quite a few individuals claim praxeology to be false on the basis that they aren’t a capitalism, essentially. So what i’m arguing is that praxeology is not exclusive to Austrian economics but rather a framework that can benefit many other areas of economics, ethics, etc.
> Praxeology is seen to be exclusive to capitalism. In what way?
I have yet to hear someone other than an anarcho-capitalist mention praxeology. Let me clarify that I do not think praxeology is exclusive to capitalism; rather, I think it’s perceived that way.
Ok. So… then I don’t get what your stance is. Are you saying that praxeology exists in that people definitely do act on purpose as opposed to instinct, but the models Austrians claim they derived from their methodology are not universally true as Austrians would have you believe? Or are you saying that their models are true but it’s not relevant in some way? What’s your *take*?
>Are you saying that praxeology exists in that people definitely do act on purpose as opposed to instinct, but the models Austrians claim they derived from their methodology are not universally true as Austrians would have you believe? Yeah, sure. I think the idea of deriving all of economics from praxeology is absurd; it's not difficult to understand why empiricism is useful.
In that case, I agree, although I would go so far as to say that praxeology itself has only marginal use generally. Most of the conclusions made via praxeological methods by Austrian do not follow logically. For example, the notion that scarce means are necessary for action.
Is that a genuine notion? I will have to look into that.
The basic idea is that if there exists superabundance of something, then it is not used as a means of action, which if true, logically would follow that if all things were superabundant no action would occur, because if the means are superabundant, the goal would already be achieved
I think that praxeology risks being economists attempting macropsychology. I think that one should look into psychoneuroendocrinology and its associated fields *before* attempting to deriving psychological conclusions from economic data and novel observation.
We get that from behavioral economics.
That's true; though I'm not sure if behavioral economics has a lot of neuroendocrinology in it yet. We don't really have the research finished yet, AFAIK.
Wouldn't macropsychology just be sociology?
In the sense that macrophysics is geology, I suppose?
>The laws in which praxeology arrive at are undeniable as any attempt to deny it must prove it to be true (if you deny that action is purposeful, you would be acting purposefully. The trouble here is that this is just an example of purposeful human action, not proof that human behavior is universally purposeful. The negation of *P => Q* is *P and not Q* which is just a fancy way of saying that if P is true and Q is not, P => Q is false. If P => Q is a "for all" statement, then the negation is a "for some" statement, meaning that all you have to do to disprove it is find an example where P is true and Q is not. Can you think of an example of human action not being purposeful? >It seems self-evident that man acts purposefully You don't have to dig into cognitive science too deeply to realize that this isn't the case. >praxeology states that all human action is purposeful; action involves a choice; choice is subjective to the actor's values/preferences; therefore, conflict exists. Most models of decision making have two types/systems/modes of decision making - one that involves a deliberate effort to reason ones way to a choice, and another that is based on heuristics, habit, emotion, etc. In my mind, this makes it hard to argue that choice is what makes an action purposeful.
>Can you think of an example of human action not being purposeful? Human action would be any behavior that involves a choice. In understanding this, I can't think of any human action that is NOT purposeful. >Most models of decision making have two types/systems/modes of decision making - one that involves a deliberate effort to reason ones way to a choice, and another that is based on heuristics. Heuristic behavior it's still driven by the actor's values and preferences, albeit in a more implicit or automatic way.
>Human action would be any behavior that involves a choice. In understanding this, I can't think of any human action that is NOT purposeful. >Heuristic behavior it's still driven by the actor's values and preferences, albeit in a more implicit or automatic way. I mean this really gets into the semantics of action, choice, values, preferences, and purpose. Philosophically, you could define action as behavior caused by an actor's intention in a particular situation, as opposed to an involuntary response. Under this definition you could argue that not all behaviors involving choice are actions - heuristic decisions are often sub-conscious and sometimes contrary to our intentions. Preferences/values can come into play with System 1 (heuristic) decision making, but aren't what we theorize drive it - rather it's the fact that our ability to make fully rational decisions is constrained. I guess my question is: how do you define purposeful? If you take it to mean intentional, "purposeful human behavior" is synonymous with action (at least in the way I've defined it), but I suppose that's why there's a 90 page Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the meaning of "action". There are a ton of differing views on how intention and acting relate to one another. For example: >A second alternative sees intentional explanations as teleological rather than causal explanations (Wilson 1980; Cleveland 1997; Schueler 2003; Sehon 2005); that is, an intentional explanation cites the goal, the purpose, or the reason for which the agent acted *rather than* the antecedent causes of the action. Defenders of this view also try to provide an understanding of the teleological structure of intentional action that denies that teleological explanations reduce to causal explanations; they are instead a *sui generis* form of explanation. This sort of aligns with what I remember learning about system 1 decision, that many of them are made before we're even consciously aware of making them, and are often an attempt to explain why they've been made. It also makes me wonder what role concepts from Eastern Philosophy plays in the discussion - acting without acting (wu wei) is a matter of acting in a matter that is neither involuntary nor purposeful. I guess my sticking point is not knowing precisely how these concepts are approached in Praxeology. I know a great deal about how human behavior is approached outside of it, and wonder where they align and diverge. Anyways, thanks for engaging. I have more questions than opinions, and find this shit fascinating.
Yeah, this is definitely more complex than I would have thought originally. I am trying to come up with a thoughtful response but there is so much to talk about that I am not sure where to even start, lol! I’ll look into this more, you’ve definitely challenged my original view. Thank you!
I don't disagree that people act purposefully.
I tend to agree with Hayek's position on it. The insistent apriorism and rationalism is just goofy. Social sciences are studies of complex phenomena. There is no deductive reasoning that can contend with the innumerable factors involved. Though it's an entirely different area, this was always my problem with Hegelian and Marxian dialectics, even when I agreed with that shit. We have a set of truisms and banalities about history and materialism and the dialectical interaction of opposites. We take our highly multifarious and complex, even chaotic, phenomenon that is the historical development of human society. We carefully select two elements within that we define as the opposites so that we have the conflict we want to describe. We engage in a gross oversimplification and removal of the innumerable other factors we have conveniently ignored and voila! We have found our prime mover of historical events. One tactic that is common to both, however, is that when the various reductive simplifications and assumptions are questioned, you just dishonestly pretend like the truisms are being disputed. The other problem with the Austrian field is that their rupture with the empiricists and the mathematical economists really happened before the full development of the statistical methods utilized in modern econometrics; they never kept up and neither did their assessment of the methodological rigor in the field. Honestly, these days, it seems to be the refuge of the BA Econ kids who don't want to take any more math classes.
> How can this be wrong? ... praxeology states that all human action is purposeful; Because not all human action is purposeful. Most of the time we don't know why we did something other than we felt like it at the time.
"Felt like it" seems to fall into purpose category. Just because you are unable to articulate it doesn't mean you did not have purpose. Unless you sleep walking. That may be it
Ok, so what, the only thing these loons get right is just a rehash of what almost all analytical philosophers already agree on. 👏..👏..🎉
It's not controversial in the "that's wrong" sense but rather in the "so what" sense.
Explain yourself. Now
You've just stated a self-evident fact surrounded by a bunch of fluff to sound smart.
Everything everyone does on purpose they do in order to serve their own personal self interest which is dictated by them subjectively. This includes addicts, terrorists, and the poor.
Neoclassically-trained financial economist here, IMO, the primary beef mainstream Chicago types have with praxx is that it comes across as an attempt to sidestep the typical research process, which is typically: 1. Narrative explanation / investigation 2. Formal theoretical modeling of step 1 (i.e., using calculus) 3. Empirical investigation of step 2 (i.e., using stats and econometrics). Also... > It seems self-evident that man acts purposefully, outside of any economic bias. "Seems self-evident" is not sufficient. If anything, OP should know that Behavioral Economics is a sizable body of published research, with 2 Nobel prizes behind it (that come to mind at the moment), which explicitly disagree with this idea, and/or validity of economic theory derived primarily by this idea. Fundamentally, the findings of behavioral econ is that predictable irrationality is a thing, that information and its perception / assimilation are different things, and that action taken and action intended (or even action understood) are different things. Predictably and measurably so.
Economics is not a hard physical science and you can’t treat it as such. There is no laboratory to conduct economics experiments. There are no physical constants, there are no control groups. Every person makes their own choices based other own subjective values. There is too much complex phenomena to make statements of fact about any piece of economic data. You cannot show cause an effect from a scientific data standpoint because you cannot possible measure everything every human being buys, sells and wants to buy or sell. Economics has to be A priori because it can’t be anything else . Anyone who tells you they have measure the economy is trying to sell you something
I'm very highly sceptical of any ideological framework that rejects empirical evidence. While I do think empirical evidence is sometimes overblown in terms of importance. It is still really quite important. Being like ohhhh we don't need to really prove our ideas! Yeah pretty sus. On top of that, it feels very: work backwards. People act with reason, yeah of course. But then to extrapolate that into, ancapism. I feel we've missed a fair few steps in the argument.
Someone makes an argument and you skip all the reasoning and then you say, "yeah, we've missed some steps." Obviously
>I'm very highly sceptical of any ideological framework that rejects empirical evidence. While I do think empirical evidence is sometimes overblown in terms of importance. I love empirical evidence except when it shows that communism doesn't work lmfao.
Wow thanks for making an argument I never made?
See? Commies hate logic and hate empiricism but they LOVE sophistry and emotional language.
>See? Commies hate logic and hate empiricism but they LOVE sophistry and emotional language. It seems like the MO of anCaps is to talk about logic and empiricism rather than use it.
self-ownership, NAP, austrian economics. All logical and empirical. Check and mate
At this point, the only way I can cope with reading something this stupid is convincing myself that you're trolling.
We all cope in our own ways. What matters is survival of human race.
The only sensible thing to do is build a Foundation on a remote planet, to preserve safeguard human knowledge during the dark ages that follow the inevitable collapse of galactic order.
Planets are susceptible to asteroid attacks and other calamities. We must build generation ships and travel through space in perpetuity.
Why are you people making an argument for me?
It seems MO of every leftist when they criticise others. So what's a problem?
>why are you making an argument i never made? >WELL OTHER COMMIES DO IT Cream of the crop.
"Other commies do not exist only me matter!"
So, I'm supposed to answer for all communists?
No just yourself. You aren't as united as you think you are
Lol this
> I'm very highly sceptical of any ideological framework that rejects empirical evidence. It literally doesn't. >While I do think empirical evidence is sometimes overblown in terms of importance The issue is attempting to use empirical evidence to assert you know how the future will unfold. Also, economic analysis is not experimentation. >Being like ohhhh we don't need to really prove our ideas! Yeah pretty sus. Again, not what Austrian economics asserts. >On top of that, it feels very: work backwards. How it feels is irrelevant. Austrians critique assumptions. >But then to extrapolate that into, ancapism. Whiteboard it.
I mean what value does a non-empiricist theory even bring to the table. It's basically just singling out actions that you deem vital to your explanation on human behavior while simply ignoring anything that would oppose this theory because you deem economy non-empirical. Like I get the criticism about the difficulty of empirical analysis in economics but at the same time just throwing it completely overboard is enabling pseudo-science.
>I mean what value does a non-empiricist theory even bring to the table. It's not non-empiricist. Once again Austrians critique the initial assumption in models. >while simply ignoring anything that would oppose this theory What exact theory are you speaking about? That humans act with purpose? > just throwing it completely overboard is enabling pseudo-science. Austrians don't do that.
Austrians essentially propose a model and then explain it with exemplary evidence while dismissing anything opposing that model with the idea that empiricism is impracticable. Essentially arguing that a narrow assumption is evidence enough. But again that's not really proposing anything solid. Most of the time is finally not all the time even if Austrian really believe it is.
>It literally doesn't. >The issue is attempting to use empirical evidence to assert you know how the future will unfold. ? That's...rejection of empirical evidence dude? You can predict economic activity based off empirical evidence?
No, it's a rejection of the interpretation of the empirical evidence. Here's is a bunch of data: 1. MMTer: it means this! 2. Austrian: it doesn't mean that. Socialist/communist: Austrians reject evidence!!! Jesus.
>Austrian School economists, following Mises, use praxeology and deduction, rather than empirical studies, to determine economic principles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology
Uh huh.
No materialism. No class analysis. Idealistic bullshit.
Praxeology is idealistic bullshit but definitely not for the silly reasons you listed.
Yes you are misunderstanding it. It is gibberish ; it is an attempt to have a philosophical foundation on which to base your economic philosophy. Socialism just killed 120000,000 people while capitalism is so natural that our genius founding fathers never considered other economic arrangements. no philosophy is necessary for economics. You just count the dead people
Yeah, no philosophy is necessary for economics. Why should you have to base your economic philosophy on a philosophical foundation? The founding fathers certainly had no philosophical education, did they? They must have been as poorly read as you. I'm sure whomever taught you to read or write must regret it.
The founding fathers had a philosophy. It was leave us alone we want to be free. 1+1 = 2.
Who is Locke? Who is Montesquieu? Who is the last person you remember seeing, you senile weirdo?
if you disagree with something that was said try to think of a reason for the disagreement and then try to present it here in writing. Do you understand that a reason was necessary????
"Please don't be stupid. Do you understand now?"
Again presenting reasons is important. If you don't have any why are you here?
Things would be a bit different if people like you finished school with a passable understanding of the philosophies that inspired the founding fathers.
can you tell us what philosophy in particular inspired George Washington?
But this is precisely what i’m asking: how is it gibberish? It seems to me that praxeology is undeniably true whether someone thinks Austrian economics is superior or not. Also, praxeology is not exclusive to economics; it’s a useful framework for all sorts of branches of philosophy.
don't be silly everybody claims their philosophy is a useful framework. This is capitalism versus socialism . The real issue is 120,000,000 dead people versus zero dead people.