I'm starting a paper on Austrian Methodology; much of it will focus on the epistemological status of the action axiom itself and the contradictory nature of adopting Popperian-style falsificationism.
I consider myself pretty well-read in this realm. I've read nearly everything on the subject by Mises and Hoppe - and a little bit of Rothbard, but I know that there are plenty of other writings out there. Basically, I'm just looking for more sources (books, journals, internet articles, lectures, whatever). You can never have enough. Suggestions???
Doubt the Action Axiom? Try to Disprove It
Karl Popper
Falsifiability
The artical on popper was really interesting.
The first few chapters of human action, are, in my opinion, the best defense of the Austrian method ever written. They outlined the position that Mises took and they critiqued many counter theories. They were enough to convince me generally, although I still hold reservations towards radical Austrianism, but I believe that a logically thorough praxeological proof is indeed necessarily correct.
Rothbard does a mediocre job at explaining the theory in the first few chapters of Man, Economy, and State, but other than that I can't think of any especially remarkable article that I ever really read on the subject.
I realize you said "everything on the subject by Mises and Hoppe", but that sounds pretty hyperbolic...so
First off, this might be the most comprehenisve list:
and
But these off the top of my head:
The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science
An Introduction to Austrian Economics
An Introduction to Economic Reasoning
Principles of Economics
Money, Method , and the Market Process
Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences
"An “Austrian” Interpretation of the Meaning of Austrian Economics: History, Methodology, and Theory" (PDF)
An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science
Relevant essays in:
Austrian Economics: An Anthology
Economic Controversies
Since you said "everything", I would hope you've read these:
Human Action
Economic Science and the Austrian Method
Theory and History
Epistemological Problems of Economics
history of the school in general:
The Austrian School of Economics
I'll add more as I think of them
I have already read most of what has been posted, but there are a few new ones. Thanks for your input.
All of this talk on method wrecks my brain. From what I've gathered, I find myself more in line with the position that Rothbard takes - as far as epistemology is concerned. The action axiom is broadly empirical, but not the same type of empirical that the positivists would assert (one does not necessarily observe actions, but rather interprets certain phenomenon as actions). The axiom itself relies on inward based reflection and the term 'a priori' is used loosely.
Although I identify with Rothbard's position, I am not quite satisfied with his arguments; both Mises and Hoppe put much more rigor into epistemological considerations. The primary difference is that of philosophy; Rothbard employs a Aristotelean rationalist view whereas Mises utilize a modified Kantian framework based on the 'synthetic a priori.' I think Mises adopts these terms because he was the first to articulate action-based axiomatic methodology. He had to make sure that he was absolutely clear that actions have a teleological nature; adopting Kant's synthetic a priori was the way to get his point across. Hoppe, being influenced by both Mises and Rothbard, attempts to bridge Aristotle and Kant using his argumentation ethic, which aims to provide a rational foundation to, not just economic science as Mises aimed, but to epistemology itself.
I think the differing views here have a lot to do with educational upbringing. In the United States, Kant is often treated idealistically - as opposed to the realistic interpretation found in much of Europe (especially by the German schools that Hoppe follows). I think this is a big reason why Rothbard is not as 'Kantian' as Mises or Hoppe.
However, the difference here comes down to semantics and is largely irrelevant (to Austrians anyways), save for the scholarly discussion.
Where do you stand?
FunkedUp:I have already read most of what has been posted, but there are a few new ones.
Call me a skeptic, but somehow I find it hard to believe you've read even close to a majority of the works listed in those 3 pages at the methodological foundations link.
All of this talk on method wrecks my brain. From what I've gathered, I find myself more in line with the position that Rothbard takes - as far as epistemology is concerned. The action axiom is broadly empirical, but not the same type of empirical that the positivists would assert (one does not necessarily observe actions, but rather interprets certain phenomenon as actions). The axiom itself relies on inward based reflection and the term 'a priori' is used loosely. Although I identify with Rothbard's position, I am not quite satisfied with his arguments; both Mises and Hoppe put much more rigor into epistemological considerations. The primary difference is that of philosophy; Rothbard employs a Aristotelean rationalist view whereas Mises utilize a modified Kantian framework based on the 'synthetic a priori.' I think Mises adopts these terms because he was the first to articulate action-based axiomatic methodology. He had to make sure that he was absolutely clear that actions have a teleological nature; adopting Kant's synthetic a priori was the way to get his point across. Hoppe, being influenced by both Mises and Rothbard, attempts to bridge Aristotle and Kant using his argumentation ethic, which aims to provide a rational foundation to, not just economic science as Mises aimed, but to epistemology itself. I think the differing views here have a lot to do with educational upbringing. In the United States, Kant is often treated idealistically - as opposed to the realistic interpretation found in much of Europe (especially by the German schools that Hoppe follows). I think this is a big reason why Rothbard is not as 'Kantian' as Mises or Hoppe. However, the difference here comes down to semantics and is largely irrelevant (to Austrians anyways), save for the scholarly discussion. Where do you stand?
That's a pretty interesting analysis, and I do agree there is plenty to be said not only about educational upbringings, but life experience in general. Friedman actually commented on how Mises specifically was influenced in this way:
Reason Magazine: But you knew Mises personally. Did you see the intolerance that you find in his method also in his personal behavior?
Friedman: No question. The story I remember best happened at the initial Mont Pelerin meeting when he got up and said, "You're all a bunch of socialists." We were discussing the distribution of income, and whether you should have progressive income taxes. Some of the people there were expressing the view that there could be a justification for it.
Another occasion which is equally telling: Fritz Machlup was a student of Mises's, one of his most faithful disciples. At one of the Mont Pelerin meetings, Fritz gave a talk in which I think he questioned the idea of a gold standard; he came out in favor of floating exchange rates. Mises was so mad he wouldn't speak to him for three years. Some people had to come around and bring them together again. It's hard to understand; you can get some understanding of it by taking into account how people like Mises were persecuted in their lives.
What is it exactly you're asking when you say "where do you stand?"
John James: FunkedUp:I have already read most of what has been posted, but there are a few new ones. Call me a skeptic, but somehow I find it hard to believe you've read even close to a majority of the works listed in those 3 pages at the methodological foundations link. All of this talk on method wrecks my brain. From what I've gathered, I find myself more in line with the position that Rothbard takes - as far as epistemology is concerned. The action axiom is broadly empirical, but not the same type of empirical that the positivists would assert (one does not necessarily observe actions, but rather interprets certain phenomenon as actions). The axiom itself relies on inward based reflection and the term 'a priori' is used loosely. Although I identify with Rothbard's position, I am not quite satisfied with his arguments; both Mises and Hoppe put much more rigor into epistemological considerations. The primary difference is that of philosophy; Rothbard employs a Aristotelean rationalist view whereas Mises utilize a modified Kantian framework based on the 'synthetic a priori.' I think Mises adopts these terms because he was the first to articulate action-based axiomatic methodology. He had to make sure that he was absolutely clear that actions have a teleological nature; adopting Kant's synthetic a priori was the way to get his point across. Hoppe, being influenced by both Mises and Rothbard, attempts to bridge Aristotle and Kant using his argumentation ethic, which aims to provide a rational foundation to, not just economic science as Mises aimed, but to epistemology itself. I think the differing views here have a lot to do with educational upbringing. In the United States, Kant is often treated idealistically - as opposed to the realistic interpretation found in much of Europe (especially by the German schools that Hoppe follows). I think this is a big reason why Rothbard is not as 'Kantian' as Mises or Hoppe. However, the difference here comes down to semantics and is largely irrelevant (to Austrians anyways), save for the scholarly discussion. Where do you stand? That's a pretty interesting analysis, and I do agree there is plenty to be said not only about educational upbringings, but life experience in general. Friedman actually commented on how Mises specifically was influenced in this way: Reason Magazine: But you knew Mises personally. Did you see the intolerance that you find in his method also in his personal behavior? Friedman: No question. The story I remember best happened at the initial Mont Pelerin meeting when he got up and said, "You're all a bunch of socialists." We were discussing the distribution of income, and whether you should have progressive income taxes. Some of the people there were expressing the view that there could be a justification for it. Another occasion which is equally telling: Fritz Machlup was a student of Mises's, one of his most faithful disciples. At one of the Mont Pelerin meetings, Fritz gave a talk in which I think he questioned the idea of a gold standard; he came out in favor of floating exchange rates. Mises was so mad he wouldn't speak to him for three years. Some people had to come around and bring them together again. It's hard to understand; you can get some understanding of it by taking into account how people like Mises were persecuted in their lives. What is it exactly you're asking when you say "where do you stand?"
FunkedUp:To clarify my question: I made the assertion that the action axiom is broadly empirical, but also fulfils the function of a 'synthetic a priori.' I'm asserting that Rothbard and Mises - despite giving different justifications - are both right. Do you agree with this assertion? Can it be argued that the action axiom is (perhaps paradoxically) both emprical and a priori? Where do you stand?
If you've really gotten through all that, you're much more studied on the subject than I, so I'm not sure how much value my opinion would have. From what I do know of them, I'd say you're analysis sounds about right. It actually sounds a bit familar, as though I've heard others make similar assessments...that Rothbard offered a different approach in some ways, but was still ultimately Misesian.
I spend most of my time reading on method, whether Austrain or not. I feel that, despite being the hallmark characterstic of Austrianism, it is poorly understood - even by most Austrians. I feel that Austrian scholars spend too much time on things like monetary and business cycle theory and forget where their roots are - not that I think there's anything wrong with that (we need all the help we can get!), but there is not enough attention paid to the most important issue - method. After all, this is the most contentious issue and is what distiguishes us from other social scientists.
I can understand the case to be made there, but at the same time, surely you understand why there is less attention paid to that branch (or roots, as it were). Obviously it's the foundation that informs the rest of the science, but ultimately the purpose of science is to advance knowledge and have it be useful in the real world. Ultimately epistemology is still just philosophy...which, again, is important, but it's just the foundation...it's not the structure...the part that is the purpose for the foundation in the first place.
You're in a crazy world. That doesn't even make sense. The whole point of the phrase "a priori" is to describe something that doesn't require real world investigation. It sounds like you're saying the equivalent of "can a person be alive with absolutely no living characteristics?"
He pocesses all faculties of logic, however the idea that he alone is likely to come to any a priori conclusions that are correct without forming a conception of them from the external world is unlikely indeed.
Praxeological theorems are a priori in nature, but it is undeniable that they are only formed because of some understanding of how it is that man really acts and having some real life situations to look at. Mises stated as much in Human Action.
Malachi:I guess I am not a full fledged austrian because I dont really understand how you can sit in your living room and analyze the world at large without any experience in the world at large. I have a feeling you are going to tell me to read human action. My question could be phrased this way: does a naive human have all the faculties of logic, or does he need to experience something first in order to develop the faculty of logical reasoning from axioms later?
I would never tell a beginner to just read Human Action. In this case I would have you read something like this:
and this:
If you want to write about the austrian method, I think beyond reading what austrians say about that, you might need to read about its philosophical framework. In short, the austrian school (at least in the mises-rothbard-hoppe axis) is a joint venture and a common effort between the continental "kantian" tradition of rationalism and the latin aristotelian and tomistic realism to break the current hegemony of positivism in economics and law.
You should study in depth at least those regarding metaphysics and epistemology, the whole work of these traditions of thought:
Aristotle, Agustin of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Spanish scholastics and Kant.
Nevertheless, it is also very recommended that you study also the critique of positivism coming from other schools such as marxism and hermeneutics.