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.
Ok thanks. I will try that.
For some reason I never seem to have much luck with the search function, idk why.
It brings up the forum posts, which is a nuissance. It used to work quite well. If you can't find them, I'll probably post them up a bit later. If you do, just link to them in here.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
nazgulnarsil: I am concerned that people can't seem to distinguish between inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning. science is pure induction. social theories are deductive or abductive (austrian is deductive, a school that appeals to history would be abductive). deduction and abduction are what we use in situations where we can't create repeatable falsifiable experiments. no economic theory is scientific. a lot of people seem to be using a loose interpretation of science.
I am concerned that people can't seem to distinguish between inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning.
science is pure induction. social theories are deductive or abductive (austrian is deductive, a school that appeals to history would be abductive). deduction and abduction are what we use in situations where we can't create repeatable falsifiable experiments.
no economic theory is scientific. a lot of people seem to be using a loose interpretation of science.
So you would call mathematics a social theory? Both inductive and deductive reasoning belong to science, which Merriam-Webster describes as:
a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
Political Atheists Blog
sirmonty: 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 do not care if Austrian economics is scientific or not. I would think it is not. But neither is philosophy. But the sciences are all branches of philosophy. What Austrian economics most certainly is, is logical.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Jon Irenicus: In its modern usage, yes. However, excessive dependence on the so-called scientific method has led some like Popper to exclude substantial parts of biology (e.g. Darwinian theory of evolution) from being science because they do not fit into this straightjacket. The ancients certainly included knowledge regarding first principles as part of science (the "demonstrables") and I think the tendency persisted up until positivism. Why the positivist fetish of restricting science to a particular model of acquiring knowledge should be accepted is beyond me, especially since science simply does mean knowledge, or more appositely certain procedures of acquiring it - why should only one be thought of as conducive to truth, to the exclusion of all others? Different domains of inquiry merit different approaches. Again, the writings of Kuhn and Feyerabend are good therapeutics in this case.
In its modern usage, yes. However, excessive dependence on the so-called scientific method has led some like Popper to exclude substantial parts of biology (e.g. Darwinian theory of evolution) from being science because they do not fit into this straightjacket. The ancients certainly included knowledge regarding first principles as part of science (the "demonstrables") and I think the tendency persisted up until positivism. Why the positivist fetish of restricting science to a particular model of acquiring knowledge should be accepted is beyond me, especially since science simply does mean knowledge, or more appositely certain procedures of acquiring it - why should only one be thought of as conducive to truth, to the exclusion of all others? Different domains of inquiry merit different approaches. Again, the writings of Kuhn and Feyerabend are good therapeutics in this case.
that's true, if everyone was a rationalist there would be a different term for strict science than there is for a general inquiry into human understanding of the world.
obviously pure induction is useless in figuring out what kind of experiemnts to try out, where to try next etc. Inutitionist, and deductive logic play a large role in that.
I don't claim that you can't derive useful predictions about the world using deductive methods, just that it isn't strictly scientific. What you get when you use deduction is strong correlations. They can be so strong that you say "it is extremely unlikely that this is *not* causation". Though you can never be sure.
Well not even a rationalist, just an anti-modernist (in the philosophical sense of the word), but my point is that that is a very restricted, relatively modern usage of the term "scientific". If you want to restrict science to mean what goes on in physics (and not what the positivists claim goes on there), that's fine, I just find it peculiar and quirkish.
Ok guys I'm still having this debate with this guy and he mentions most people have a sigmoidal utility function on money as evidence that mathematical models don't fail when it comes to human values (which I claimed were subjective).
Wtf is he even talking about?
Ask him if he knows of anyone who uses calculus on a mintue-ly basis.
krazy kaju: Ask him if he knows of anyone who uses calculus on a mintue-ly basis.
Knowing him, he will probably say he does.
He is an egotistical self-righteous asshat like that. He thinks because the recently decided he was going to switch his major to economics and he read a book or two about it that he knows more than anyone concerning them.
It doesn't matter if he does it, it matters if everyone does it. So does everyone use mathematical functions instantaneously to evaluate their money?
>>Do you have any links that clearly demonstrate that they saw it coming from a mile away?
sirmonty,
I don't recall exactly a link or a source where I read this. I remember from Mises' "Causes of Economic Crisis" he talked a lot about the Weimar inflation and also the American depression. That book covered up to the 1940's or later.
Rothbard has hundreds of writings.
As for today's crisis, there have been books and writings since 2002 about the inflationary financial crisis that would eventually occur.
krazy kaju: It doesn't matter if he does it, it matters if everyone does it. So does everyone use mathematical functions instantaneously to evaluate their money?
Yeah he doesn't seem to get that point.
Also, he keeps insisting that marginal utility and subjective values can be reduced to numerical models because "businesses and non-profit firms who have to economize at a large scale do it all the time."
Jon Irenicus:hy the positivist fetish of restricting science to a particular model of acquiring knowledge should be accepted is beyond me, especially since science simply does mean knowledge, or more appositely certain procedures of acquiring it - why should only one be thought of as conducive to truth, to the exclusion of all others?
I have no clue, but that's why even though I consider myself an empiricist, that like Rand, I exclude myself from positivism as that I don't think that everything that is induced exclude that which is deduced. The only thing that makes this clear for folks is that I totally disregard the analytic-synthetic dichotomy altogether in epistemology. Basically, what is known whether as a 'rational' conclusion of a train of thought or as an 'empirical'/induced conclusion of existing relationships and entities there's no point in subdividing one from the other as the former depends on there being consistency in the latter (if that makes any sense...).
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Yes, it's called the price mechanism...
Jon Irenicus: Also, he keeps insisting that marginal utility and subjective values can be reduced to numerical models because "businesses and non-profit firms who have to economize at a large scale do it all the time." Yes, it's called the price mechanism...
Well I pointed that out, but he seems content on continually asserting that calculus and mathematical models are essential to economic theory.
Now he says that it doesn't matter if the mathematical models don't reflect human action and real, life they are still useful. He then points to Operations Research as "proof." Followed shortly by a lame attempt at some sort of appeal to authority by saying that he is studying math and economics....
As is common, he has read nothing directly of the Austrian school and relies on quick google searches in "refutations" of it. I mean, I am certainly a n00b to economics in general, but even I can see how self-righteous and confused the guy is...