Hi everybody, I've been visting this site for a while now and this my first post, woohoo! Ok, about my question:
I've been learning a lot about Austrian Economics over the past year or so, reading books, listening to audio lectures, video lectures, primarily off this site, though there were one or 2 other sources. My primary interest has been Human Action, and I must say that praxeology does seem to be a fairly exciting science! I'd never even come across the word before, and now I'm engrossed in wanting to elaborate on this system and try and deduce the body of economic thought logically and axiomatically, like Mises does, and I hope to do this by the time I've finished making notes on the book.
I've noticed the book, and a lot of Austrian economics does seem quite "wordy". I must confess, i'm not an economics student, and actually am in my 3rd year studying theoretical physics(bah, humbug! stamped of positivists!), so I'm not used to thi kind of wordiness. Mises seemed wordy too at first, but I think out of the literature I've read so far he's possibly the most concise, and often only repeats things to reveal finer layers to the concepts he reveals.
My question is, do you think praxeology could be elaborated on and developed in a fashion resembling symbolic logic? Even if not exactly reminiscent, could it at least borrow some of its form and presentation from symbolic or mathematical notation. Please do not misinterpret me. I'm not arguing the case for quantitative or "objective" economics, simply asking if another mode of presentation could be achieved.
Nevertheless, I'm trying to do this myself from my reading of Human Action so far. It''s such a huge book, though I won't be done for a while...
Wow, that was a wordy post!
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
Also, I'd like to ask, do you think such a mode of interpretation could be be beneficial, and also help resolve disputes between Austrians? After all, this is supposed to be a science where alternative theorems are discriminated agianst based on their logical consistency?
I often consider this, mathematical logic being an interest of mine. I'm hardly an expert in matters economic, but research that I'm aware of done in the austrian methodology is in large part conducted in the frame of natural intuition of human action. If research becomes more theoretical then more formalization and rigor will be needed to resolve differences of intuition.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
abskebabs: My question is, do you think praxeology could be elaborated on and developed in a fashion resembling symbolic logic? Even if not exactly reminiscent, could it at least borrow some of its form and presentation from symbolic or mathematical notation. Please do not misinterpret me. I'm not arguing the case for quantitative or "objective" economics, simply asking if another mode of presentation could be achieved.
Though I don't have much experience in symbolic logic, I feel that such a conversion would not only a massive waste of time that could be placed in other more worthy pursuits, I doubt those interested in symbolic logic have a similar interest in Austrian economics, but that it might also have the consequence of weakening Austrian economics rightfully strong aversion to quantifing economics, which woud be a logica step after utiizing symboic logic. Though the materials of Austrian economics can be a bit wordy, by not using symbolic logic, their authors enable anyone with patience and a dictionary to read them; however, the use of symbolic logic would greatly reduce the quantity of readers who would be able to even comprehend what is written.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Solomon: I often consider this, mathematical logic being an interest of mine. I'm hardly an expert in matters economic, but research that I'm aware of done in the austrian methodology is in large part conducted in the frame of natural intuition of human action. If research becomes more theoretical then more formalization and rigor will be needed to resolve differences of intuition.
I can understand where you're coming from with reference to intuition, I find this very much with the way develops conclusions and implications fro the primary axom of human action, especially in the 1st section of human action. They seem to resemble more an elabioration on the meaning of this axiom, than cut and dried deductions made from a set of initial axioms. I therefore don't deny the usefulness of intuition, it's just it's not a very useful way of finding out how we reach our conclusions, as it is simply a label, like "instinct" for animal behaviour that cannot be explained adequately as purposeful action or automative biological behaviour.
Hence, I am not convinced that intuition can be consituted a methodology, it can help one see results that one has not rigorously proved yet, but I cannot see how it could be used to discern between different theorems in an sbolute sense(due to iots necessarily subjective character, one I think bears much similiarity to the subjectivity of historical judgements of relevance). Frankly, if this was really my impression of Austrian methodology I would stop studying Austrian economics, and probably give up on social sciences all together.
laminustacitus: Though I don't have much experience in symbolic logic, I feel that such a conversion would not only a massive waste of time that could be placed in other more worthy pursuits, I doubt those interested in symbolic logic have a similar interest in Austrian economics, but that it might also have the consequence of weakening Austrian economics rightfully strong aversion to quantifing economics, which woud be a logica step after utiizing symboic logic. Though the materials of Austrian economics can be a bit wordy, by not using symbolic logic, their authors enable anyone with patience and a dictionary to read them; however, the use of symbolic logic would greatly reduce the quantity of readers who would be able to even comprehend what is written.
Interesting comment. I can understand where you're coming from as far as accessibillity of literature goes. Indeed, one of the main reasons that attracted me to the Austrian school is the simplicity and cogency in which it is presented, and this format has been verbal, apart from a few illustrative diagrams like value scales and things of the sort. I guess part of my inspiration for this idea was to elaborate on these "pictures" and try to build a consistent system. Perhaps, this could complement the words, rather than replace them. Also, I do have the current impression that symbolic logic may not currently be developed in a form suitable to represent praxeological notions, so this may actually require development. I think I'd like to read more into logic and lingustics generally myself, as this is an area interesting me.
Also, I don't necessaily see you're implication of a symbolic representation necessarily making economics quantitative. To my mind whether a science is quantitative, and how it is invesitgated depends on the subject matter of the science, not on he language it is presented. I could present to you several results of quantum from postulates and experimental results completely in words without using a single equation, and it would still contain its necessarily "quantitative nature". Indeed, In think even most of advanced mathematics is not necessarily quantitative in the sense of the applied sciences, e.g. conceptually vectors for example are abstract objects we describe with rules, whose existence is totally apart from any need for enumeration . We apply enumeration to apply the theorems to practical purposes, allowing representation in a field of numbers relative to a basis.
It is true that using a symbolic logic does not automatically mean that one applies a quantative stance towards the theormes expressed using that symbolism; yet, I am still adverse towards the idea of doing so in that by communicating a purely verbal form has the advantage of strenthening Austrian economics rejection of a quantatative theory. Of course, those who have experience in advanced mathematics and physics may not see the two as a corelation, but to a layman barely educated in symbolic logic that may not be so and I'd much rather not risk giving them the wrong notion.
Although I do have some experience in the quantatative nature of results expressed sans equations; it may be best that you do present such results for those who haven't.
Consider: scarcely anyone would deny the reality of human action, if they correctly understand the idea of it, but many people deny ABCT or the viability of gold as currency, out of deference to the opinions of mainstream economists or otherwise. Wouldn't a rigorous proof be more convincing to these people, whether they work through it themselves or are browbeaten by it? (Of course using natural language in many or most situations may be preferable).
At any rate there's more to austrian economics than just convincing people of its validity.
Here's an article you might find interesting.
http://rothbard.be/english/articles/the-logic-of-law
It's more geared toward natural law but it has some praxeological material, though the results are a bit trivial.
Solomon: Consider: scarcely anyone would deny the reality of human action, if they correctly understand the idea of it, but many people deny ABCT or the viability of gold as currency, out of deference to the opinions of mainstream economists or otherwise. Wouldn't a rigorous proof be more convincing to these people, whether they work through it themselves or are browbeaten by it? (Of course using natural language in many or most situations may be preferable).
I think you've hit the nail with it there. This is the reason for me wanting to carve out an approach this way, actually primarily to demonstrate the validity of what I'm learning to myself, only secondarily to anybody else. To me this is what separates science from everything else, the fact that you can demonstrate its validity for yourself.
Also I thank you very much for the link, I'll look at it later, but I think I'll start my work now, and come back later as I've been procrastinating for too long now.