So, I've always been surprised that Praxeology has remained so esoteric. Anyone have any idea why this is? If I'm interested in really pursuing Praxeology as a field of study however where should i go? what should i do? your assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Why Praxeology is so esoteric? My guess is because Austrians have been trying to convince other economists of its validity. Instead of focusing on convincing philosophers, they try to convince economists, who tend to be ignorant in matters of epistemology and think anything straying from empiricism is "pseudoscience." They are simply trained to think a certain way, and if anyone questions that rigid, dogmatic method, it is rejected outright. Philosophers tend to be more open minded in such matters, and I feel if Austrians were to introduce their ideas to them, instead of to economists who were weaned on the teat of Keynes, we could gain a solid foothold in academia. And judging by the state of philosophy today, it is yearning for something like praxeology. Philosophy has been practically relegated to the scrap heap of useful sciences lately. Praxeology has the ability to make philosophy relevant again.
Where to go to pursue a study of praxeology? Directly to the source. Read Human Action, Theory and History, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, Epistemological Problems of Economics, Economic Science and the Austrian Method, etc.
I oppose many parts of praxeology too. I disagree with the 'psychological' aspects of praxeology. Its 'psychological' aspects are psychological egoism, the axiom of human action, and the means-end dichotomy. They are completely unnecessary, and, in my opinion, they are used rhetorically to sugarcoat Austrian economics to make it look more 'logical'.
Same thing happens with the "A = A" nonsense of Objectivism (Ayn Rand). It makes it look more 'logical'.
However, I do not oppose the economic aspects of praxeology. Its economic aspects are ordinal value and marginal utility.
So we should be careful to specify which aspects of praxeology we disagree with.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
phrizek:Where to go to pursue a study of praxeology? Directly to the source. Read Human Action, Theory and History, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, Epistemological Problems of Economics, Economic Science and the Austrian Method, etc.
I've done reading on my own, but i meant more along the lines of where is it taught? (i.e. where in the world)
If you speak of austrian econ. in college there is the obvious GMU, a small program in NYU, Loyola in Maryland and New Orleans, Auburn University in Alabama, and a few other institutions around the nation. Also, FEE may also teaches some of the introductory aspects of Austrian Econ./Praxeology. Outside of the US there is the universities where Pascal Salin, Hulsmann, De Soto, and others teach. I don't know if this is what you were looking for, but I hoped I helped.
Luis Buenaventura: If you speak of austrian econ. in college there is the obvious GMU, a small program in NYU, Loyola in Maryland and New Orleans, Auburn University in Alabama, and a few other institutions around the nation. Also, FEE may also teaches some of the introductory aspects of Austrian Econ./Praxeology. Outside of the US there is the universities where Pascal Salin, Hulsmann, De Soto, and others teach. I don't know if this is what you were looking for, but I hoped I helped.
Don't forget, the Mises institute holds several seminars throughout the year. Including a graduate level seminar and 'Mises University' which is more along the lines for undergrads. They are always holding such events just check out the main page.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
You mean the law of identity, not "nonsense of Objectivism", as if mere mention of Ayn Rand should elicit a knee-jerk reaction from people on here... as for the rest concerning psychological egoism I think I came to the conclusion you really do not understand how Austrians use it.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Luis Buenaventura:If you speak of austrian econ. in college there is the obvious GMU,
Keep in mind that most of the Austrians at GMU aren't praxeologists.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
phrizek:Instead of focusing on convincing philosophers, they try to convince economists, who tend to be ignorant in matters of epistemology and think anything straying from empiricism is "pseudoscience."
i'd really like to see praxeology become more accepted and higher renowned (though i shudder at the possible popscience defamation). is there anything that can be done (other than the manifestation of excessive brilliance forcing its popularization) to help it burgeon into a more well known subject.
Perhaps this is a project one of us should engage in: to try and present the action axiom, it's logical underpinnings and postulational corequsities, then use it to draw out the theorems and conclusions that follow formally, theorem by theorem. The language of symbolic logic, or something along its lines could be used, to aid the clarity of the exposition. This is something I've been thinking about, but I've been reading, rereading and making notes on Human Action very slowly, so I need to finish it as well as many others too before I consider such a project.
Human Action is great, but a lot of it does cover background material and philosophical material, which is great and essential; though the exposition I feel could be made for more succinct and "distilled."
"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."
Anarcho-Mercantilist:I oppose many parts of praxeology too. I disagree with the 'psychological' aspects of praxeology. Its 'psychological' aspects are psychological egoism, the axiom of human action, and the means-end dichotomy.
jwilsn1020: phrizek:Instead of focusing on convincing philosophers, they try to convince economists, who tend to be ignorant in matters of epistemology and think anything straying from empiricism is "pseudoscience." i'd really like to see praxeology become more accepted and higher renowned (though i shudder at the possible popscience defamation). is there anything that can be done (other than the manifestation of excessive brilliance forcing its popularization) to help it burgeon into a more well known subject.
We just have to pick our battles with a modicum of intelligence. Rather than waste time (my opinion) doing things such as debating statists in online forums or whatnot, imagine if every university student here directed a copy of "Economic Science and the Austrian Method" to every professor in their school's philosophy department. Or if that's too ambitious, scope out one or two receptive professors (who tend towards rationalism) and buy them copies of Human Action. Look at the potential here. Imagine if in the first case, you handed out 20 copies of ESAM and it convinced one professor to take a look at Human Action. Now, not only do we have one more praxeologist in the world, but an influential one who potentially reaches 50+ students every semester/quarter. Or in the second case, the professors read Human Action, are rapt by its brilliance and recommend the book to all their colleagues. You can see how Austrian ideas can start to catch on if they are targeted to those most receptive to its ideas. If you're trying to sell a steak, you don't market it to vegans.
phrizek:We just have to pick our battles with a modicum of intelligence. Rather than waste time (my opinion) doing things such as debating statists in online forums or whatnot, imagine if every university student here directed a copy of "Economic Science and the Austrian Method" to every professor in their school's philosophy department. Or if that's too ambitious, scope out one or two receptive professors (who tend towards rationalism) and buy them copies of Human Action. Look at the potential here. Imagine if in the first case, you handed out 20 copies of ESAM and it convinced one professor to take a look at Human Action. Now, not only do we have one more praxeologist in the world, but an influential one who potentially reaches 50+ students every semester/quarter. Or in the second case, the professors read Human Action, are rapt by its brilliance and recommend the book to all their colleagues. You can see how Austrian ideas can start to catch on if they are targeted to those most receptive to its ideas. If you're trying to sell a steak, you don't market it to vegans.
Haha! I like your idea.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
phrizek: My guess is because Austrians have been trying to convince other economists of its validity. Instead of focusing on convincing philosophers, they try to convince economists, who tend to be ignorant in matters of epistemology and think anything straying from empiricism is "pseudoscience." They are simply trained to think a certain way, and if anyone questions that rigid, dogmatic method, it is rejected outright. Philosophers tend to be more open minded in such matters, and I feel if Austrians were to introduce their ideas to them, instead of to economists who were weaned on the teat of Keynes, we could gain a solid foothold in academia. And judging by the state of philosophy today, it is yearning for something like praxeology. Philosophy has been practically relegated to the scrap heap of useful sciences lately. Praxeology has the ability to make philosophy relevant again.
If you want to advance Austrian economics you're going to have to convince other economists of it, that's the unfortunately reality. It's an uphill battle, I'll give you that, but it's not impossible to win.
GilesStratton:If you want to advance Austrian economics you're going to have to convince other economists of it, that's the unfortunately reality. It's an uphill battle, I'll give you that, but it's not impossible to win.
There are many more examples of other models of paradigm shift. For instance, one can convince only the young economists, and then the old ones will die out. This is the most common way that new ideas gain ground in science - established scientists don't shift paradigms very often. Or, you can convince people outside the field. Once philosophers and political scientists start asking in shock at Faculty Senate meetings "How can it be that we don't have any classes on Austrian economics?" or, even better "why am I teaching the only classes on Austrian economics?" the economics departments are shamed into adding someone in that field. Or convince the philosophers in large numbers, and in 50 years there won't be a battle in economics. Keynes was a philosopher, and only took one economics course.
GilesStratton: phrizek: My guess is because Austrians have been trying to convince other economists of its validity. Instead of focusing on convincing philosophers, they try to convince economists, who tend to be ignorant in matters of epistemology and think anything straying from empiricism is "pseudoscience." They are simply trained to think a certain way, and if anyone questions that rigid, dogmatic method, it is rejected outright. Philosophers tend to be more open minded in such matters, and I feel if Austrians were to introduce their ideas to them, instead of to economists who were weaned on the teat of Keynes, we could gain a solid foothold in academia. And judging by the state of philosophy today, it is yearning for something like praxeology. Philosophy has been practically relegated to the scrap heap of useful sciences lately. Praxeology has the ability to make philosophy relevant again. If you want to advance Austrian economics you're going to have to convince other economists of it, that's the unfortunately reality. It's an uphill battle, I'll give you that, but it's not impossible to win.
Good luck. We've been trying to do that for 50 years. How is that going again?
Listen, the biggest obstacle to the adoption of Austrian economics (in academia) is its "radical" epistemology. The economists won't touch it because the philosophers haven't sanctioned it. The philosophers haven't sanctioned it because they haven't heard of it. And that is because we, the people who should know better, have been too busy trying to convince two-bit economists who know nothing of epistemology save for a phony "scientific method" they learned in college. We're not going to achieve anything substantial this way. But if we can get the philosophers to recognize and extol the epistemological soundness of Austrian economics, adopting Austrian methodology won't be so difficult to swallow for the current economists who are only familiar with empiricism. The economists will be convinced after we convince the philosophers.
Success is not always achieved through following a linear path; you may be forced to take alternate routes along the way. Think strategically, not linearly.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Anarcho-Mercantilist:I oppose many parts of praxeology too. I disagree with the 'psychological' aspects of praxeology. Its 'psychological' aspects are psychological egoism, the axiom of human action, and the means-end dichotomy.So you disagree with the action axiom while acting. How....self-contradictory.
Ahh, but this is no problem for him, since he denies the law of non-contradiction as well.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Blatant nihilism FTW!
phrizek:Good luck. We've been trying to do that for 50 years. How is that going again?
Well there's a number of Austrian PhD programmes, even more Austrians in undergraduate degrees, so I'd say not too badly. People like Herbener and Block have been converted. As I said, it's an uphill battle, but in the next 50 years, the grounds are set for Austrianism to become more popular, with the work on the Mises institute and other Austrians.
phrizek:he philosophers haven't sanctioned it because they haven't heard of it. And that is because we, the people who should know better, have been too busy trying to convince two-bit economists who know nothing of epistemology save for a phony "scientific method" they learned in college
Economists don't even listen to philosophers, the biggest piece in methodology in the last century was Friedman's essay (which I read yesterday, it's pretty poor if you ask me) and that was written by an economists (as well as the other big piece by Blaug, also an economist). Positivism has been out of favour with philosophers for some time now, economists still adhere to it because they're just that, economists, not philosophers. As Herbener says, before he became an Austrian he had no idea about epistemological issues, he was just doing what all the other economists did. The only Austrian who came to Austrianism through philosophy was Hoppe.
If you want to advance Austrianism to philosophers, that's good, and important. The same applies for political science and sociology, but don't confuse doing that with advancing Austrian economics. Moreover, don't confuse it with "advancing liberty".
GilesStratton:The only Austrian who came to Austrianism through philosophy was Hoppe.
hold on their, big guy. that's how i've arrived here (through philosophy, not economics)!
GilesStratton: Well there's a number of Austrian PhD programmes, even more Austrians in undergraduate degrees, so I'd say not too badly. People like Herbener and Block have been converted. As I said, it's an uphill battle, but in the next 50 years, the grounds are set for Austrianism to become more popular, with the work on the Mises institute and other Austrians.
I can count the number of Austrian PhD programs on my fingers. The numbers of new Austrian graduates are insignificant next to how many are indoctrinated with "mainstream" economic ideas. On a purely numerical basis, its not even a competition. No doubt that the Mises Institute is doing remarkable things, but you shouldn't put all your hope in one institution. We need to have a wider, decentralized effort attacking the problem from every conceivable angle, and so we need alternative strategies to accomplish this for academia.
GilesStratton: Economists don't even listen to philosophers, the biggest piece in methodology in the last century was Friedman's essay (which I read yesterday, it's pretty poor if you ask me) and that was written by an economists (as well as the other big piece by Blaug, also an economist). Positivism has been out of favour with philosophers for some time now, economists still adhere to it because they're just that, economists, not philosophers. As Herbener says, before he became an Austrian he had no idea about epistemological issues, he was just doing what all the other economists did. The only Austrian who came to Austrianism through philosophy was Hoppe.
I think you are underestimating the role that philosophy has played in shaping the history of science. All modern sciences are essentially a sub-branch/extension of philosophy. Science literally cannot proceed without philosophers first delineating the methodology that scientists then utilize. (Think of people like A.J. Ayer and logical positivism.) Sure, many philosophers today don't think kindly upon positivism, but economists still use it because philosophers haven't provided them with an alternative methodology. If philosophers started advocating praxeology in large numbers, it would give timid economists the confidence they need to adopt something that was previously seen as "radical" epistemologically.
GilesStratton: If you want to advance Austrianism to philosophers, that's good, and important. The same applies for political science and sociology, but don't confuse doing that with advancing Austrian economics. Moreover, don't confuse it with "advancing liberty".
My primary goal isn't to promote Austrianism to philosophers. I want economists to be economists, ie. praxeologists. But the only way to do that is to give praxeology a sense of legitimacy in the academic world, and the easiest way to do that is to convince the philosophers. I want to advance praxeology; Austrian economics and individual liberty will necessarily follow from there.
phrizek: I think you are underestimating the role that philosophy has played in shaping the history of science. All modern sciences are essentially a sub-branch/extension of philosophy. Science literally cannot proceed without philosophers first delineating the methodology that scientists then utilize. (Think of people like A.J. Ayer and logical positivism.) Sure, many philosophers today don't think kindly upon positivism, but economists still use it because philosophers haven't provided them with an alternative methodology. If philosophers started advocating praxeology in large numbers, it would give timid economists the confidence they need to adopt something that was previously seen as "radical" epistemologically.
Exactly. I'm not bringing this up due to Giles that's a side issue.
But I'm commenting on this cause a lot of people do not realize the major role philosophy plays in science. Philosophers sit in with scientists often to help them figure out theories due to the logic that philosophers offer to help the scientists weed through their conceptual needs. Stephen Jay Gould who collaborated with Niles Eldridges fossil finds to come up with Punctuated Equilibrium wrote in his huge book, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" how numerous philosophers helped him and others out while doing their science. And he discusses evolutionary theory all the way back into the late 1700's and early 1800's when science was still called natural philosophy. They directly know the philosophers they are dealing with and sit and talk with them. It's not that abstract. It's direct communication. Excellent points phrizek.
phrizek: Science literally cannot proceed without philosophers first delineating the methodology that scientists then utilize.
It doesn't follow that most economists care about what philosophers have to say about methodology, most simply follow what their peers are saying or do what yields the best result. As I said, positivism has been out of favour for a long time with philosophers, economists still dogmatically adhere to it, because their peers do and because they don't see any other way of getting better results.
phrizek:My primary goal isn't to promote Austrianism to philosophers. I want economists to be economists, ie. praxeologists. But the only way to do that is to give praxeology a sense of legitimacy in the academic world, and the easiest way to do that is to convince the philosophers. I want to advance praxeology; Austrian economics and individual liberty will necessarily follow from there.
No, they won't. You have to market it to economists too, otherwise it simply won't be accepted by the economic community. Unless you can show that it can provide results, economists won't stick to it, the attractiveness of elegant mathematical models will still continue to dominate unless it can be shown that verbal logic can provide superior results.
phrizek:I can count the number of Austrian PhD programs on my fingers. The numbers of new Austrian graduates are insignificant next to how many are indoctrinated with "mainstream" economic ideas.
And yet, the numbers are increasing continuously, Austrian PhD programmes are necessary if you want to be able to train economists who have the ability to challenge the mainstream.
GilesStratton: phrizek: Science literally cannot proceed without philosophers first delineating the methodology that scientists then utilize. It doesn't follow that most economists care about what philosophers have to say about methodology, most simply follow what their peers are saying or do what yields the best result. As I said, positivism has been out of favour for a long time with philosophers, economists still dogmatically adhere to it, because their peers do and because they don't see any other way of getting better results. phrizek:My primary goal isn't to promote Austrianism to philosophers. I want economists to be economists, ie. praxeologists. But the only way to do that is to give praxeology a sense of legitimacy in the academic world, and the easiest way to do that is to convince the philosophers. I want to advance praxeology; Austrian economics and individual liberty will necessarily follow from there. No, they won't. You have to market it to economists too, otherwise it simply won't be accepted by the economic community. Unless you can show that it can provide results, economists won't stick to it, the attractiveness of elegant mathematical models will still continue to dominate unless it can be shown that verbal logic can provide superior results. phrizek:I can count the number of Austrian PhD programs on my fingers. The numbers of new Austrian graduates are insignificant next to how many are indoctrinated with "mainstream" economic ideas. And yet, the numbers are increasing continuously, Austrian PhD programmes are necessary if you want to be able to train economists who have the ability to challenge the mainstream.
My words are clearly lost on you, Giles.
i find it distressing where this topic has gone, in that i consider it indicative of a trend. austrian economics is very important, but it is still only a subset of praxeology. in the original sense of the word, economics deals with all social structure. now, little progress has been made towards reifying this intention (primarily because little effort has been afforded). more recently, we have mr nash's contribution, which have helped to stimulate minimal understnding of the true goal of economics, but seems to be lacking in true efficacy. do me a favor, raise your hand if you familiar / versed in praxeology. why must everyone focus on the ancien regime of econmics when its full potential is closer than ever? how many of you limit economics to the exchange of goods and services? in conjunction with non-capitol economcis and crusoe economics, the whole field can move towards yielding the "pure logic of choice" - the praxeological ideal...
jwilsn1020:why must everyone focus on the ancien regime of econmics when its full potential is closer than ever? how many of you limit economics to the exchange of goods and services? in conjunction with non-capitol economcis and crusoe economics, the whole field can move towards yielding the "pure logic of choice" - the praxeological ideal...
That's what I say. Austrians seem to me like the caveman who invented the wheel and spends all his time trying to perspuade the other cavemen of its utility, while it's within his capacity to invent the internal combustion engine.
If you're interested, Adam Knott has done some work to put praxeology on a more rigorous basis.
I reject the human action 'axiom'. I reject it because the phrase "humans act" seems redundant. "Action" is within the definition of what constitutes a "human."
The human action 'axiom' is no different from those 'facts' below:
Why does the fact "humans act" deserve a higher priority over the list above?
Anarcho-Mercantilist: Humans think Humans see Humans move Humans consume energy Humans live on earth Humans have blood Humans enjoy food
What a wonderful list of actions. Oh wait you are supposed to be denouncing the axiom of human action...ummm
RABBLE! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!
153618
It doesn't help that Austrians claim all their propositions are the result of deductive logic, yet after half a century no one has actually explicitly spelled out the reasoning involved. If they had, then how would anyone disagree, any more than they could disagree with a mathematical proof? You say it's not mathematics? Yes, I know, but is it deductive or not?
The excuse I've heard is that it would be hard work. Well how you do know this methodology is even valid, then? You must be accepting these propositions based on a plausible argument, and the relevance of certain empirical claims. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that.
Anarchist Cain, you did not refute my first rejection of the human action 'axiom':
AM:I reject the human action 'axiom'. I reject it because the phrase "humans act" seems redundant. "Action" is within the definition of what constitutes a "human."
Do you consider the fact that "humans have hair" as an 'axiom'?
Anarcho-Mercantilist: Anarchist Cain, you did not refute my first rejection of the human action 'axiom': AM:I reject the human action 'axiom'. I reject it because the phrase "humans act" seems redundant. "Action" is within the definition of what constitutes a "human." Do you consider the fact that "humans have hair" as an 'axiom'?
Rejecting that humans act is an action. And no being human does not require having hair, one can be hairless and still human.
By the way,
enjoying food, having blood and having hair are traits that exist in species beyond humanity. I fail to see why you bring these up concerning a argument based against human action.
Anarchist Cain:Rejecting that humans act is an action. And no being human does not require having hair, one can be hairless and still human.
Rejecting that humans can understand language requires one to understand language. Therefore, all humans understand language. Do you consider this as an 'axiom'?
Anarchist Cain: RABBLE! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! 153618
I'm definitely thinking of this when Anarcho- pops up. Rabble! Rabble! Rabble! lol
Anarcho-Mercantilist: I reject the human action 'axiom'. I reject it because the phrase "humans act" seems redundant. "Action" is within the definition of what constitutes a "human." The human action 'axiom' is no different from those 'facts' below: Humans think Humans see Humans move Humans consume energy Humans live on earth Humans have blood Humans enjoy food Humans have hair Why does the fact "humans act" deserve a higher priority over the list above?
I do not think that you reject the "humans act" axiom as false. I instead believe that you reject the "humans act" axiom as useless because it is redundant. However, you must realize that all praxeological laws are redundant. The "humans act" axiom is, however, the most visibly redundant law.
The "humans act" axiom contains all information of the nonnatural sciences (i.e., of praxeology); however, it is the task of the praxeological scientist to explain what it means to "act".
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Rejecting that humans can understand language requires one to understand language. Therefore, all humans understand language. Do you consider this as an 'axiom'?
You have to have conceptual knowledge of what language is in order to reject it otherwise you are arguing from ignorance.
Anarchist Cain: Anarcho-Mercantilist:Rejecting that humans can understand language requires one to understand language. Therefore, all humans understand language. Do you consider this as an 'axiom'? You have to have conceptual knowledge of what language is in order to reject it otherwise you are arguing from ignorance.
So all humans understand language, right?
Anarcho-Mercantilist:So all humans understand language, right?
Language is agent neutral. You can reject language but you then cannot communicate that you rejected it. Also we must establish if 'body language' is a language we are discussing.
Anarchist Cain: Anarcho-Mercantilist:So all humans understand language, right? Language is agent neutral. You can reject language but you then cannot communicate that you rejected it. Also we must establish if 'body language' is a language we are discussing.
Same thing with the law of identity. I can reject the law of identity but I cannot communicate that I reject it. Therefore, you cannot "prove" the law of identity without argumentation. So the law of identity depends on the presense of argumentation.
The performative contradiction argument is derived from the law of identity. Therefore, I also reject the performative contradiction argument but I cannot communicate that I reject it.
I reject the performative contradiction argument, and the human action 'axiom' depends on a performative contradiction argument. Therefore, I reject the human action 'axiom', but I cannot communicate that I reject it.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: I can reject the law of identity but I cannot communicate that I reject it. Therefore, you cannot "prove" the law of identity without argumentation. So the law of identity depends on the presense of argumentation.
No because it does not necessarily follow that in rejection you lose your identity. You still retain your identity even if you wish to deny it which is why the law of identity is an axiom. It is an irrefutable claim in which the attempt to refute it contradicts your demeanor or existence. Actually the law of identity is itself self-fulfilling. You have an identity whither or not I am arguing with you.
By the way you contradicted yourself twice in a single reply. You reject the performative contradiction, then say you cannot communicate such rejection but then go on to say again that you reject it. Bear witness to all the actions you are committing in order to refute the axiomatic nature of action itself.
I see that Anarcho-mercantilist ignored my previous post.