In discussing economics with a person, they made the claim that Austrian economics is unscientific. When asked how it is unscientific, they simply linked the following link.
How would mises.org respond to this:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-aussm.htm
I am an Engineer. I will tell you this. To predict an outcome you must understand the fundamental principles underlying the topic under consideration. The principles of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, electronics, etc.. are all logically derived from laws - facts. Principles that are derived from facts & laws (axioms) are sound and last the test of time. Austrian Econ. is a science, not necessarily based on statistics, mathematical models and theories, but based on logic derived principles from facts underlying human behavior.
Modern day economics consist of simplistic models, diagrams, math and jargon. Many created to model observed past statistics. This is not science. It's curve fitting. You cannot fundamentally predict the outcome of an event based on curve fitting. Modern day economics is not science. It's guess work.
Appears the writer does not understand a priori statements, resorts to the old worn out strawman that a prior knowledge is all prior to any experience with the real world, which is untrue. And no, deductive statements on economics do have 'truth' and 'falsity' value, because the validity of a deductive statement cannot be known by appealing to experience does not entail that the nature of the statement is unknown- for example we could point out the flaw in the reasoning or logic. Roderick Long has worked on fleshing out this strawman incorporating Gottleb Frege's theory on logic which is contemporary and not an old relic.
The propositions of economics posited by the Austrian school such as "humans act" in that we employ means towards ends, are a prior but meaningful to empirical reality and economic phenomenon. He conveniently skims over (as most contemporaries do), the improtance of methodological individualism to explain the phenomenon of value in economics, which is understood and applied in theory by deduction and understanding of time preference or the order at which economic actors place preferences. Trying to prove that humans employ means to achieve ends, in a world of scarcity cannot be proven scientifically or with 'if then' methodology- because finding a counterexample in the real world would lead to absurdities. How could the scientific community find an example of a person employing ends to achieve means? That's absurd.
Perhaps he should also inquier on how the Austrian schoo ironically outlasted the logical positivists, as a viable theory on knowledge. How do we know that our perceptions and empiricism say something about reality? I think a lot of so called mainstream economists, or macro economists should not call themselves social scientists- many of them are econometricians or people who abstract from real world phenomenon to create mathematical economic models, but rarely does their work explain how people employ scare resources to unlimited wants.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Its truly just frustrating, these people criticize the fact that Austrian economics is scientific assuming that both the physical, and social sciences have the same criteria for being scientific. Second of all, the author of this article seriously has never read an author describing how Austrian economics is built off from the action axiom, and a priori reasoning; instead, they merely act as if Austrian economists proclaim that all of their economics to be an axiom in and of itself. That article is so poorly researched that it does not deserve a responce. If people want to believe an article that has only two footnotes, and does not even quote a purely epistemological statement of the Austrian school, then they have just looked for evidence to confirm their own biases.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Well, another piece of hogwash. You start, declaring that science is only what you like it to be, than bash on that strawman. There is no "scientific" method. Science is about increasing knowledge and methods are structured ways to do so.
The idea that only an inductive approach to predictions (where predicitoin is only one step in scientific work) is scientific is absurd. Induction and decution are both tools to increase knowlede.
So right from the start this article copes with a strawman and is not worth being read nor being discussed.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
fezwhatley: Roderick Long has worked on fleshing out this strawman incorporating Gottleb Frege's theory on logic which is contemporary and not an old relic.
Do you have any links or articles concerning this? I'd be really interested in reading about this.
The lecture: Friedman vs. Mises on Method
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=author&ID=383
This can also be helpful
http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/long.pdf
What about the critique claiming that the Austrian school is "unfalsifiable?" Is it indeed unfalsifiable?
Lol, so mathematics, like any other axiomatic science, is un-scientific because you can not falsify that 1 and 1 equals 2?
Indeed the axiom of austrian economics - man acts- is not falsifiable, as no axiom is. And, as in math, no logically correct deduced facts are falsifiable.
That is exactly what I was thinking as I read this. As you said, any axiomatic activity is not science. In fact, the sciences long for the same level of assurance and confidence as axiomatic fields. Your arguement is exactly as strong and correct as your assumptions and the process of your logic.
And one exciting thing about facts and data is that they can be used to show anything you believe... as long as you modify them appropriately.
One hundred trillion Zimbabwe dollar note
No, that's even more rubbish. It's falsifiable in two ways: reformulating core axioms and assumptions/specifying new ones that were omitted earlier and correcting flaws in the deductions. This happens in mathematics, geometry and logic. They're not "unfalsifiable", unless one has some pet definition of "falsifiable" that involves constant testing of some sort, in which case they're engaged in special pleading. Anyone interested should read Hoppe's In Defense of Extreme Rationalism, Barry Smith's article on fallibilistic apriorism, Laurence BonJour's In Defense of Pure Reason and Geoffrey Plauche's article on Aristotelian apriorism. Kuhn is also useful reading, to disabuse oneself of the notion that there's One True Scientific Method TM. The author of that article is, simply speaking, a clueless hack.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
If the Austrian school is unscientific, then mathematics is just as unscientific if not moreso, since both rely on a priori and deductive logic. You might want to see this.
Political Atheists Blog
krazy kaju: If the Austrian school is unscientific, then mathematics is just as unscientific if not moreso, since both rely on a priori and deductive logic. You might want to see this.
I'm just wondering, what would you say to those who absurdly think that mathematics is an experimental science or who think that even the statement "there is truth" is not axiomatic but only empirical? How could they possibly believe this?
They think that because they haven't thought about the subject on their own. They remember their first grade teacher taking one pencil and adding another pencil, giving them two pencils, which then makes them think that arithmetic (and thereby all mathematics) is experimental. In short, this is a non sequitur. Only because you use some means of a posteriori knowledge to understand a priori facts like 1+1=2, doesn't mean that someone constructed an experiment to see if 100+341=441 or if 100*100=10000, &c.
Just as you need some outside experience to understand some of the basic a priori facts of mathematics, you need some outside experience to understand some of the basic a priori facts of economics. We know that humans act from experience. We know that time exists from experience. We know that scarcity is a problem from experience. But from these facts we can deduce much more. Just as we can deduce from 1+1=2 that 100*100=10000, we can deduce from human action, time, scarcity, etc. that economic value relies on the subjective values of humans. In both cases there is much more we can deduce that MUST be true, since the arguments are sound.
its a minor point but i disagree that the principles of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, electronics are logically derived from laws - facts.
they are derived from principles and models that havent yet been disproved by factual evidence. (the good principles and models anyhow)
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring