Debating Austrian Methodology with Positivist-Empiricists

Sieben, I see little point in actually continuing this discussion because of the fact that your last paragraph makes it obvious that you have already decided the conclusion. All I'm going to say is that just because of the fact that praxeology needs to be employed by other things. Of course I made an appeal to authority when that is what the entire poin is, the fact is that praxeology employs real world conditions.

Most of what you're critiquing is not what praxeology really is, you do have to apply real world assumptions but this is not against anything in the praxeological method, it was always near the core of the entire method, to actually apply physics or any other science you need to give a whole host of assumptions, this does not mean that they are in any was useless.

So I'll just leave you to a single question, how do you come up with, or explain markets in your mechanical view of the economy? You cannot include a single case of human action, decision, or preference, all of those are praxeological concepts.

Neodoxy:

Sieben, I see little point in actually continuing this discussion because of the fact that your last paragraph makes it obvious that you have already decided the conclusion.

I had already decided it all along. Praxeology does not give you super powers or unlock hidden truths.

Neodoxy:

All I'm going to say is that just because of the fact that praxeology needs to be employed by other things. Of course I made an appeal to authority when that is what the entire poin is, the fact is that praxeology employs real world conditions.

I do not deny that you can use praxelogical vocabulary to describe the world. My point is simply that it adds nothing.

Its like... x+y=10 and given y=4, what is x? We can solve it directly. But if you want to introduce a silly little circumlocution and say "let x=w, w+y=10, w+4=10, w=6, x=6" you're not really adding anything. But its exactly what you do with praxeology. HUMAN ACTION IS DEFINED AS PURPOSEFUL! But who knows if a particular event is actually "Human action" or purposeful... unless you assume that it is (circular).

Neodoxy:

Most of what you're critiquing is not what praxeology really is, you do have to apply real world assumptions but this is not against anything in the praxeological method, it was always near the core of the entire method, to actually apply physics or any other science you need to give a whole host of assumptions, this does not mean that they are in any was useless.

I didn't say you were contradicting praxeology. I said you did not derive markets FROM praxeology because A) You included a bunch of really non-praxeological stipulations and B) The proof depends only on those stipulations and not praxeology itself.

And you still haven't really given me a case where praxeology is useful. As far as I can see, its just definitional.

Neodoxy:

So I'll just leave you to a single question, how do you come up with, or explain markets in your mechanical view of the economy?

Can't I just take them as given? That's the simplest way.

Neodoxy:

You cannot include a single case of human action, decision, or preference, all of those are praxeological concepts.

You would never be able to figure out if I were talking about human action because you don't know whether my actors are Robots or "People". I wouldn't specify. Occam's razor, you know.

Sieben:

I do not deny that you can use praxelogical vocabulary to describe the world. My point is simply that it adds nothing.

HUMAN ACTION IS DEFINED AS PURPOSEFUL! But who knows if a particular event is actually "Human action" or purposeful... unless you assume that it is (circular).

 

Alright now you seem to be challenging to different things, the fact that human action is purposeful and the fact that parxeology explains anything. Now tell me why DONT you believe that humans act purposefully. You know that you act purposefully, now why do you believe that everyone else does not?

 

 

Sieben:

I didn't say you were contradicting praxeology. I said you did not derive markets FROM praxeology because A) You included a bunch of really non-praxeological stipulations and B) The proof depends only on those stipulations and not praxeology itself.

 

If you define things that way then I agree that I am not derriving things from praxeology by itself, just as I wouldn't be drawing any conclusion about what would happen from theories about gravity. The existence of gravity and the equation that accompanies it cannot tell you anything by itself, you must presuppose an object and, for instance, that it is not flying or that there is not something holding it up, you don't know anything about what the object will do without assumptions.

 

Sieben:

And you still haven't really given me a case where praxeology is useful. As far as I can see, its just definitional.

 

It allows us to understand human behavior. For instance we can understand that markets come into existence because of the fact that people believe that exchange is beneficial, and that's just the example I gave you. If you open anything written by Mises or Rothbard then it becomes evident the consequences of praxeology and how it is that it makes sense of the world, and for our purposes the benefits of free markets and the harmful effects of government intervention in almost all cases.

 

Sieben:

Can't I just take them as given? That's the simplest way.

 

That's not how you go about scientific inquiry. You don't know how it is that anything works that way or what happens when you tamper with it. Indeed why shouldn't scientists and economists all just take the universe as a given and go home? The point of science is to understand, without an attempt at understanding or at very least manipulation there is no science. If you just take markets as given then your mechanical view of the economy displays its fundumental flaws and flashes itself off for the unworkable model that it is.

 

If you don't understand Kant, you will _not_ understand Mises and the praxeological method. Of course, without a dose of Aristotle, you won't really be able to catch the differences in the way Rothbard approaches Austrian economics.

You guys are just hitting the surface of the centuries old problem, here, and unless you have the background knowledge, you'll be groping about in the dark.

Might I recommend Kant's Prolegomena to Future Metaphysics?. The analytic/synthetic distinction, which Mises uses often, virtually began with Kant. As such, Mises attempts to expound upon this philosophy by bridging the gap. His exercise in economics isn't just meant to be fanciful; it's meant to be analytical (true by definition), yet somehow saying something true about the real world, and about real actors. This debate isn't just about economics. This controversy has extended far back to the nature of mathematics and logic, as well.

Whatever you think of Kant's solution, isn't it absolutely bizarre that mathematical constructs really do describe the world? Isn't it strange that things do accord to the basic laws of logic? I'm not going to get into the debate over QM, but it really is a silly one for anyone who follows the mad ravings of philosophically inept physicists. Even if it were true that reality did not accord to the laws of logic ontologically speaking, we could never know this epistemologically, whether you follow Aristotle or Kant.

 

If you don't understand Kant, you will _not_ understand Mises and the praxeological method. Of course, without a dose of Aristotle, you won't really be able to catch the differences in the way Rothbard approaches Austrian economics.

Excellent point, for the 2nd time I'll recommend the Botteke/ Leeson article I linked to dealt with Kant.  There is also the Barry Smith article abut Menger, Mises, and Aristotle...and a few Roderick Long articles (who is an Aristotelian) about Austrian econ and Wittgenstein.  To me these are vital articles to understanding the methods and metaphyics of "mainstream" Misean Austrian Econ.  I would also like to add "The Legacy of Max Weber" by Ludwig Lachmann too that list, if one really wishes too venture further into the issue.

And once again I am going to state, most people on here I bet have no idea what they are talking about when they use the words rationalism, naturalism, empiricism, etc. 

If I had to psychologize, I would  bet it is just 2nd rate "hardcore" science hobbyists who wish to appeal to this aristocratic (british empricism culture) authority, as some end all device...Which is stupid when you really want to worship the scientific method as the end all be all for everything from narrative, to ALL forms of science, to all forms of philosphy...hoonestly, it is silly thinking that shouldn't require much time to disparage.  I mean their philosophy (and it is a metaphyiscal philosophy and epistomology no matter how hard they try to say it isn't) is self defeating.

 

Neodoxy:

Alright now you seem to be challenging to different things, the fact that human action is purposeful and the fact that parxeology explains anything. Now tell me why DONT you believe that humans act purposefully. You know that you act purposefully, now why do you believe that everyone else does not?

If you define "human action" as purposeful, then yeah human action is purposeful. Except you don't know if a particular thing is "action", or if a particular agent is "purposeful". It either comes down to you employing circular logic --> "Humans act therefore they must be purposeful" or agnosticism --> "Action is purposeful but just by observation we don't know whether a particular phenomenon is action or mere animation".

Neodoxy:

If you define things that way then I agree that I am not derriving things from praxeology by itself, just as I wouldn't be drawing any conclusion about what would happen from theories about gravity. The existence of gravity and the equation that accompanies it cannot tell you anything by itself, you must presuppose an object and, for instance, that it is not flying or that there is not something holding it up, you don't know anything about what the object will do without assumptions.

Ugh. You are not deriving it from praxeology period. If the derivation DEPENDED on praxeology, then yeah, you would be deriving it from praxeology + other stuff. But the other stuff animates itself, and the proof is easily completed without defining "action" as "purposeful".

Neodoxy:

It allows us to understand human behavior. For instance we can understand that markets come into existence because of the fact that people believe that exchange is beneficial, and that's just the example I gave you.

Now you're psychoanalyzing people from the ivory tower again. Belief is not necessary for action (in the mechanical sense). But all we observe are mechanics. You can't say people believe certain things just by observing that they move. The only way you can make this leap is to assume that people are purposeful/teleological, which is as good as just assuming praxeology. I.e. you add no content.

Neodoxy:

If you open anything written by Mises or Rothbard then it becomes evident the consequences of praxeology and how it is that it makes sense of the world, and for our purposes the benefits of free markets and the harmful effects of government intervention in almost all cases.

Not really. As far as I can see, their criticism of central banking depends almost entirely on the standard criticism of price controls. Price controls would still affect purposeless robots.

Neodoxy:

That's not how you go about scientific inquiry. You don't know how it is that anything works that way or what happens when you tamper with it.

I am not able to deductively prove how markets work on the psychological level. No one can. Praxeology cannot either. You just think it can because you jockey between two different definitions of "action" - the "purposeful" definition, and the putative "mechanical" definition.

Neodoxy:

Indeed why shouldn't scientists and economists all just take the universe as a given and go home?

They kind of do. They take like... mass as given. Conservation laws as given. Gravity/gravitrons as given. Then they try to model them using equations and laws. Kind of like how economists try to model economies with simple laws (ex: price sensitivity, tarrifs, etc) or more complex equations ala econometrics. Its all varying degrees of BS but the point is that scientists and economists are allowed to take stuff as "given".

Neodoxy:

The point of science is to understand, without an attempt at understanding or at very least manipulation there is no science. If you just take markets as given then your mechanical view of the economy displays its fundumental flaws and flashes itself off for the unworkable model that it is.

I'm open to the idea that markets can be "understood", but not from the ivory tower. If you make a whole bunch of empirical assumptions about humans, then it starts coming in to place. But there are no objective laws that say "markets arise". And understanding is not enhanced by introducing a tautological definition.

 

 

 

Sieben:

 If you define "human action" as purposeful, then yeah human action is purposeful. Except you don't know if a particular thing is "action", or if a particular agent is "purposeful". It either comes down to you employing circular logic --> "Humans act therefore they must be purposeful" or agnosticism --> "Action is purposeful but just by observation we don't know whether a particular phenomenon is action or mere animation".

 

That doesn't answer any part of my question

 

Sieben:

Ugh. You are not deriving it from praxeology period. If the derivation DEPENDED on praxeology, then yeah, you would be deriving it from praxeology + other stuff. But the other stuff animates itself, and the proof is easily completed without defining "action" as "purposeful".

 

No, it depends upon praxeology, otherwise nothing would happen unless you just take for a given that people will form markets when they can, which is false. The entire derivation relies upon the idea that humans act purposefully, otherwise we could have all the conditions for a market and you could not answer why a market could not form, if as soon as a market could form, it did form, then why isn't everything a market? Why do markets ever stop, why don't people spend all of their money?  What are negative consequences of restricting what people can buy? If human action is not purposeful then actions are random and irrelevant and utility cannot exist. This means you cannot deter someones' wellbeing by taking away something. You also cannot explain specific patterns of consumption.

Finally, of course the proof is brought to life with the praxeologocial assumption, otherwise we could not actually prove that markets could ever come about in any circumstances ever. Try to do my original proof without praxeology, I can guarantee you that there will be a logical gap.

 

Sieben:

Now you're psychoanalyzing people from the ivory tower again. Belief is not necessary for action (in the mechanical sense). But all we observe are mechanics. You can't say people believe certain things just by observing that they move. The only way you can make this leap is to assume that people are purposeful/teleological, which is as good as just assuming praxeology. I.e. you add no content.

 

You still have made no agument that people do not act purposefully and if the praxeological assumption is right then you're not assuming that people believed something was the case, it MUST have been the case otherwise people would not act.

 

Sieben:

Not really. As far as I can see, their criticism of central banking depends almost entirely on the standard criticism of price controls. Price controls would still affect purposeless robots.

 

That's one case and that's only part of the case, there's also the basic argument against inflation and the business cycle which relies inherently upon human action. As for your continual robot analogy the only reason why price controls in this instance work is because of the fact that you're saying "people act exactly like purposeful man does" so of course price controls apply, you just cannot argue WHY anything like this happens.

And actually I can certainly think of robots that it would not apply to. For instance, let's say that a price ceiling is set, how is it that we know there will be an increase in demand? We don't, there's no reason why there would be. Why would anyone consume any more if the price was set at a specific level and could not ruse anymore?

You can't really respond to any argument that is proffered against you in any respect. I argue against the market society because prices will become fixed and will not change to new consumer demand. Why wouldn't this happen? You have to argue that magically entrepreneurs will appear to move capital and change prices while this assertion actually makes sense if we employ praxeology.

 

Sieben:

I am not able to deductively prove how markets work on the psychological level. No one can. Praxeology cannot either. You just think it can because you jockey between two different definitions of "action" - the "purposeful" definition, and the putative "mechanical" definition.

 

Strawman, I don't think that I can, praxeology does not equal psychology.

 

Sieben:

They kind of do. They take like... mass as given. Conservation laws as given. Gravity/gravitrons as given. Then they try to model them using equations and laws. Kind of like how economists try to model economies with simple laws (ex: price sensitivity, tarrifs, etc) or more complex equations ala econometrics. Its all varying degrees of BS but the point is that scientists and economists are allowed to take stuff as "given".

 

The difference is that you're taking everything as a given when you don't have to. You cannot explain why any economic event happens which pretty much just makes everything you say an assertion and you can't rely upon the scientific method to save you like hard scientists can do. Indeed I don't understand how it is that you could oppose socialism or any type of government intervention. Who cares if price controls lead to shortages? It doesn't matter the robots have no preferences, it doesn't matter if markets are removed? Robotic man will just act and you can't give a single reason why it is that it couldn't do so.

 

Sieben:

I'm open to the idea that markets can be "understood", but not from the ivory tower. If you make a whole bunch of empirical assumptions about humans, then it starts coming in to place. But there are no objective laws that say "markets arise". And understanding is not enhanced by introducing a tautological definition.

 

Who claimed that there is a law that markets must arise? Where are "all of these empirical assumptions"? Praxeology relies only upon two, that man seeks his own self interest and will act in what he believes is the most efficient manner at that specific time. Also, why is it that you cannot understand markets from the ivory tower, and what explanation for markets do you expect to find that won't be absolutely compatable with praxeology

Neodoxy:

That doesn't answer any part of my question

Yeah it does.

Neodoxy:

No, it depends upon praxeology, otherwise nothing would happen unless you just take for a given that people will form markets when they can, which is false.

Actually you just take it as "given" that people will economize to some extent. I.e. conserve scarce resources. I believe you do this in your "proof" as well.

Neodoxy:

The entire derivation relies upon the idea that humans act purposefully, otherwise we could have all the conditions for a market and you could not answer why a market could not form, if as soon as a market could form, it did form, then why isn't everything a market? Why do markets ever stop, why don't people spend all of their money?  What are negative consequences of restricting what people can buy?

You probably have to introduce some MORE non-praxeological stipulations to answer these questions.

Neodoxy:

If human action is not purposeful then actions are random and irrelevant and utility cannot exist.

They're only random in the existential sense. The same way that the laws of gravity are "random". You can have rhyme without reason.

Neodoxy:

This means you cannot deter someones' wellbeing by taking away something. You also cannot explain specific patterns of consumption.

You can't either. What it comes down to is you thinking you can psychoanalyze people from the ivory tower. Its impossible. You haven't even tried to show that regular people are even praxeological agents.

Neodoxy:

Finally, of course the proof is brought to life with the praxeologocial assumption, otherwise we could not actually prove that markets could ever come about in any circumstances ever. Try to do my original proof without praxeology, I can guarantee you that there will be a logical gap.

 

 

Although I still have not ben able to find the article by Hoppe I am thinking of, I did find this...

https://mises.org/pdf/ESAM.pdf

which should be sufficient to show any positivist exactly what the Austrian position is and why it is correct.

Finally getting around to this. I know Sieben has been temp-banned for a month, but hopefully he'll see this if/when he comes back.

Sieben:

By "whatever" I mean... "whatever"! 95% confidence intervals! Why not? Sounds good. Sounds acceptable. Controlled studies with n=3000 split evenly between control groups and test groups doubleblind equaly air conditioned! Sounds good.

I really don't understand your point here. Are you saying it's all arbitrary?

Sieben:

But what guidance does praxeology have? To tell us that humans act purposefully? So what if I ignore that? What if I say "people eat 2500 calories a day, on average" and don't bother about why? Dunno, they just do it. They're black boxes. Or they do it because chemical processes potantiate hunger potentiates eating. At what point do I need AE to study and predict the economics of food consumption? What erroneous conclusions do I risk making (other than failing to realize that THEY HAVE A PURPOSE DAMNIT!!!).

In Human Action, Mises distinguishes between purposeful and non-purposeful behavior. Essentially, purposeful behavior is conscious behavior. Now what is consciousness? In terms of "hard" science, no one knows yet. Consciousness can't yet be described in purely mechanistic physical terms. We don't know what physical conditions are strictly necessary and/or sufficient for consciousness to exist. So what's the alternative? Look at consciousness at a higher level. Treat consciousness as a black box in terms of its causal origin. I think that, in a nutshell, is praxeology.

If you say "people eat 2500 calories a day, on average" and don't bother about why, that's up to you. But people are not robots (in the man-made sense). Because we can't (fully) describe consciousness in a purely mechanistic way, we can't analyze people's behavior in a purely mechanistic way. So a different methodology must be used to analyze people's behavior. Praxeology is one such methodology. Interestingly enough, praxeology doesn't even bother with investigating why people act how they act. It treats people's preferences at every instant as given.

Back to your example about eating. "People eat 2500 calories a day, on average" isn't even a praxeological statement. It certainly doesn't allow you to predict how many calories a given individual will eat during a given day in the future. How do you know that there aren't other contributing factors besides average daily calorie consumption? The same is true with chemical processes potentiating hunger and hunger potentiating eating. A person can feel hungry but not eat. If people were robots (again in the man-made sense), they would eat as soon as they feel hungry. Oftentimes they don't. Why not?

You could say that people eat as soon as they feel "sufficiently" hungry, but this just shifts the goalposts. What is "sufficiently"? Is it the same for everyone? Is it the same all the time? Otherwise, what contributing factors are there for "sufficient hunger"? It's worse than this, in fact, because we don't even know all of the chemical processes which potentiate hunger. Not only that, we don't even know what exactly constitutes hunger.

Praxeology, in the end, is really just a formalization of the methodological individualism that we all implicitly use in our daily lives.

It turns out the piece from Hoppe I have been thinking of was not a daily article. It was this speech he gave over the summer...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3FdvqZFHG0&feature=player_embedded#!