Advice on a paper that I'm writing...

Reply

Caley McKibbin replied on Wed, Dec 9 2009 10:01 PM

rated by 0 users

Firstly, positivism has no place anywhere.

Btw, "methodology" and "method" do not mean the same.

Reply

Adam Knott replied on Thu, Dec 10 2009 2:29 PM

rated by 0 users

FunkedUp:

 

I am writing a paper for one of my grad classes (the course is appropriately titled "Advanced Analytical Reasoning) attempting to explain praxeology and why the standard accepted method of positivism has no place in economics.  I also want to explain views of history as it relates to praxeology and positivism.  

Also, since my class is focused on medicine and health care I also wanted to explore how the scientific method can be applied to conduct research in medicine, but NOT as a method to effectively allocate health care services or goods.

I have a good amount of sources on the subject, but am running into a minor problem.  See, my paper can not exceed 20 pages, and I am encountering dilemmas on what material to include and what material to exclude.  I know trying to explain topics like these in a short essay is an audacious task, but my professor and classmates seem completely unaware of the praxeological methodology, and I'd like to provide a brief explanation to introduce them to the subject, even if it isn't 100% thorough. 

To sum this up...I am arguing.

Praxeology is the only methodology for economics

Positivism has no place in economics, but can be used in physical sciences (ex, scientific research of medicine)

The different views of history: Praxeology vs. Positivism 

 

Can anyone help me out???

Funked Up:

I don't know whether this might be helpful:

Your class is called Advanced Analytical Reasoning.  According to Mises, praxeology is a formal and logical science analogous to formal logic and mathematics.  (Hayek referred to this science as "The Pure Logic of Choice").

So there is your tie-in to the theme of the class.  The science that Mises termed "praxeology," which is a formal/logical approach to social phenomena (as opposed to an empirical approach), is conceived to be purely analytical.  It is an advanced form of analytical reasoning, applied not to spatial bodies, but instead, applied to the individual striving to attain his goals as happiness.

You write the following as your theme:

...since my class is focused on medicine and health care I also wanted to explore how the scientific method can be applied to conduct research in medicine, but NOT as a method to effectively allocate health care services or goods.

I think the idea you are getting at can be stated along the following lines:

The scientific or empirical method which is the basis of modern medicine, is focused on the biological and physiological aspects of health.  These aspects of health are one aspect of human happiness.

But the allocation of health care services (as opposed to actual medical treatment to the human body) affects human happiness in another way which one could reasonably hold cannot be explained in terms of biology and physiology.  That is, the way in which health care services and goods are allocated affects human happiness when they are or are not allocated, where, how, and when the individual actor expects them to be.  

The question of the allocation of health care services or goods, as opposed to their actual physical application to a human body, and the effect that the allocation (conceived in terms of human expectations) has on human happiness, is not a physical/biological phenomenon.  Or, at least, there is in our present state of knowledge, no physical/biological scientific explanation of how expectations and desires and their fulfillment or frustration impact human happiness.

We can see this by the following example.  If person A desires that a member of his family B have access to a certain medical treatment, and if B is prevented from gaining access to this medical service, this affects the happiness (health) of person A differently than if B can gain access to this treatment.  This kind of happiness has to do with the satisfaction or frustration of the desires of A.  It has to do, so to speak, with the "logic of happiness."   Thus, health care services can be seen from two aspects: the actual administration of the therapeutic technique to the physical body, and, the individual's expectations with respect to the allocation, quality, availability, etc., of such services.....

This latter aspect is the aspect dealt with by praxeology.   It is an aspect that has more to do with the human mind as logical structure, as contrasted with the human brain as physical object.....

Your thesis seems to be that while the empirical method is valid as the basis for a science of biological and physiological medical treatments, this same method is not valid as a means of understanding the "allocative" aspects of medical services.  The "allocative" aspects of medical services are dealt with by a different kind of science, an advanced analytical science, that has more to do with the formal-logical reasoning used in mathematics, than it does with the empirical method used for testing new medicines.

To the extent that the allocation and distribution of medical services affects human happiness in a way that cannot be explained in terms of biology and physiology, to this extent we explain the allocative aspects of these goods by a different science.  When this science is construed narrowly as dealing with the social allocation of goods and services in terms of exchange ratios (i.e., money), this science is referred to as economics.

When this science is construed more broadly as dealing with the logic of human desires and expectations generally, this science is referred to as praxeology.

Your thesis seems to be that praxeology, a form of Advanced Analytical Reasoning that studies the logic of involved in the striving to attain things as happiness, is the proper science for studying the the way in which the allocative aspects of medical goods and services impact human happiness (satisfaction, well-being, etc.)-----while the empirical scientific method is the appropriate method for studying how the human body is impacted biologically and physiologically by various health care goods and services.

********

Here are some other random thoughts and ideas which may be helpful:

Modern medicine, supported by the scientific method, conceived as the empirical method, is conducted largely under the assumption that virtually everything important that can be said about human health and well-being can be discovered by the empirical method (what you refer to as the scientific method).

However, if praxeology is a formal/logical science of human action as Mises and others argued, and if human action is the striving to attain things as happiness, then it follows that praxeology is a formal/logical science of happiness.

The general view of most of society is that with regard to human happiness and well-being, those things that can be scientifically asserted with respect to human happiness and well being, are asserted by empirical science.  I.e., modern medicine which is essentially applied biology (physiology).

By contrast, those things that deal with the mental aspect of happiness, are largely considered "un-scientific" in the strict sense.  Not that people believe  cognitive approaches are useless, but the general belief holds that there are various "schools" and "approaches", and that each of these schools and approaches has some useful things to offer, but none of them is universally valid.  In this sense, people might recommend Yoga, religion, therapy sessions, meditation, positive thinking,  etc.... But they generally do not consider these things "scientific."    In the view of most in society, there is no such thing as a formal/analytical science, analogous to mathematics and formal logic, that can assert anything universal with respect to human happiness.