http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMn2R5txO28&feature=related
Unfortunately the poster has blocked comments, but he in a nutshell(for those who don't want to sit through the video) that because Austrian economics relies on deductive reasoning it is an pre-scientific school of economics that belongs in the dustbin of history. The poster/narrator criticizes the Austrian school for not using data and instead relying on rationalism, which he claims went by the wayside in around the 18th century. He also criticizes the deductive reasoning of the Austrians as 'pre-scientific' and ends the video by saying that if the Austrians were indeed correct they would become well-known overnight.
Thoughts? criticisms?
He doesn't understand science.
Science is what hangs together the empirical data and logic. It is rational. One needs a thought to be able to know the data.
This man has never heard of computer science.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Elaborate please.
Not responding the my own question of course, but here's another youtube user who has a multi-part critique of the Austrian School http://www.youtube.com/user/AustrianCritique
It seems that the main arguments against Austrians are that:
a) they don't use data or the scientific method
b) they are no better than a religion because they rely on belief and put theory above reality
c) they must be wrong because they're not the mainstream
d) They use pre-scientific deductive reasoning with the idea of searching for support for a certain political viewpoint rather than the truth.
Have to say I find it funny that this guy's comment and rate section are disabled as well.
CrazyCoot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMn2R5txO28&feature=related Unfortunately the poster has blocked comments, but he in a nutshell(for those who don't want to sit through the video) that because Austrian economics relies on deductive reasoning it is an pre-scientific school of economics that belongs in the dustbin of history. The poster/narrator criticizes the Austrian school for not using data and instead relying on rationalism, which he claims went by the wayside in around the 18th century. He also criticizes the deductive reasoning of the Austrians as 'pre-scientific' and ends the video by saying that if the Austrians were indeed correct they would become well-known overnight. Thoughts? criticisms?
He's not caught up on contemporary philosophy. In the late 19th century, the trend in philosophy was against the rationalists. That only lasted for a while, and now the philosophy ball is back in their court. These things take time to trickle into other areas of study. I forget the name of the group of philosophers that were against the rationalists, but I'm pretty sure their work branched off from the empiricists.
Either way, he's attacking AE for using logic by using logic. And in action and in essence, attacking logic.
What are the major shortcomings of other schools when it comes to how they handle data, the scientific method etc?
CrazyCoot: It seems that the main arguments against Austrians are that: a) they don't use data or the scientific method
If by the scientific method he means logical positivism, then correct. But Austrian economics isn't detached from the real world as it does involve data. Sounds like he might not know his own theory.
CrazyCoot: b) they are no better than a religion because they rely on belief and put theory above reality
theory is how reality is known. theory is thought. Is he saying he doesn't think, in other words, doesn't realize data? you get my drift.
CrazyCoot: c) they must be wrong because they're not the mainstream
lol
CrazyCoot: d) They use pre-scientific deductive reasoning with the idea of searching for support for a certain political viewpoint rather than the truth.
propositions of deductive reasoning are prior to naming, meaning, the propositions are of the real world (external and internal) and then premised with conclusions in order to discover implications between the propositions. Those propositions occur due to evidential data and axioms. that is what finding truth is about.
Giant_Joe:Either way, he's attacking AE for using logic by using logic. And in action and in essence, attacking logic.
lol... exactly
CrazyCoot:Thoughts? criticisms?
Found this, which allows ratings and comments.
"This video is bogus. In the spirit of the internet, I have re-posted it to allow comments and ratings... as naturally the origional video would have been 1 rated and tarnished with truth. Please rate this video as you see fit (1) and comment accordingly.The Scientific method is the proper epistemology for the natural sciences, but not the social sciences. To find out why; read:The Mantle of Science by Murray Rothbardhttp://mises.org/rothbard/mantle.aspWhat Is the Proper Way to Study Man? - Rothbardhttp://mises.org/daily/3605Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economicshttp://mises.org/rothbard/praxeology.pdf
Praxeology as the Method of the Social Scienceshttp://mises.org/rothbard/praxeologymethod.pdf
Remember, the Austrian School of Economics was the only school of thought that has consistently predicted every crisis in this country over the last century. Why? Because it has the right methodology."
It's an entirely new science based entirely on deductive reasoning that has made enormous technological progress possible.
How so? I know nothing of computer science.
And thanks Conza; I gave your video 5 stars.
He makes the faulty assumption that praxeology & economics and the physical sciences must attain their axioms via the same method. Like others have said, the former's are already known before the fact. The axioms and its propositions deduced are tested by the laws of logic; they are universal and they are apodictically true. The latter's axioms can't be reached the same way. They have to hypothesize, isolate factors, experiment, and so on. With his dismissal of logic, it isn't surprising he concludes with a fallacy ( "if the Austrians were indeed correct they would become well-known overnight").
CrazyCoot:And thanks Conza; I gave your video 5 stars.
I believe the idea of the video poster, was to get others to rate it 1 stars... lol
CrazyCoot: Not responding the my own question of course, but here's another youtube user who has a multi-part critique of the Austrian School http://www.youtube.com/user/AustrianCritique It seems that the main arguments against Austrians are that: a) they don't use data or the scientific method They do not disown the use of data, per se. b) they are no better than a religion because they rely on belief and put theory above reality Ad hominem and a strawman. It is not the rejection of "reality" in the place of our theories-- it denies the use of cold mathematics, statistics, and pure observation as a means of examining the causes of error in economics. To quote from Rothbard's America's Great Depression: "Empirical fact enters into the theory, but only at the level of basic axioms and without relation to the common historical-statistical "facts" used by present-day economists... Suffice it to say here that statistics can prove nothing because they reflect the operation of numerous casual forces-- perhaps an increase in risk, perhaps expectation of rising prices-- were strong enough to raise interest rates. But the Austrian analysis of the business cycle continues to operate regardless of of the effects of other forces. For the important thing is that interest rates are lower than they would have been without the credit expansion. From theoretical analysis we know that this is the effect of every credit expansion, but statistically we are helpless-- we cannot use statistics to estimate what interest rates would have been. Statistics can only record past events; they cannot describe possible but unrealized events." (pg. 85-86) c) they must be wrong because they're not the mainstream Negative proof fallacy. d) They use pre-scientific deductive reasoning with the idea of searching for support for a certain political viewpoint rather than the truth. Austrian economics, at least/especially in the works of its central contributor Ludwig von Mises, focuses on the value-free nature of the economic science. Have to say I find it funny that this guy's comment and rate section are disabled as well.
They do not disown the use of data, per se.
Ad hominem and a strawman. It is not the rejection of "reality" in the place of our theories-- it denies the use of cold mathematics, statistics, and pure observation as a means of examining the causes of error in economics. To quote from Rothbard's America's Great Depression:
"Empirical fact enters into the theory, but only at the level of basic axioms and without relation to the common historical-statistical "facts" used by present-day economists... Suffice it to say here that statistics can prove nothing because they reflect the operation of numerous casual forces-- perhaps an increase in risk, perhaps expectation of rising prices-- were strong enough to raise interest rates. But the Austrian analysis of the business cycle continues to operate regardless of of the effects of other forces. For the important thing is that interest rates are lower than they would have been without the credit expansion. From theoretical analysis we know that this is the effect of every credit expansion, but statistically we are helpless-- we cannot use statistics to estimate what interest rates would have been. Statistics can only record past events; they cannot describe possible but unrealized events." (pg. 85-86)
Negative proof fallacy.
Austrian economics, at least/especially in the works of its central contributor Ludwig von Mises, focuses on the value-free nature of the economic science.
My personal Anarcho-Capitalist flag. The symbol in the center stands for "harmony" and "protection"-- I'm hoping to illustrate the bond between order/justice and anarchy.