If Austrian economics is based on deductive logic, has anyone ever attempted to write out the chain of assumptions and propositions without all the extra explanatory material in e.g. Mises or Rothbard? Shouldn't you be able to write out a numbered step-by-step verbal proof of any proposition? If not, why not?
scineram: Solomon:Anyway, the idea of a mathematical deduction, as opposed to any other sort of deduction, is that it is independent of however one might intuit its premises; this is precisely what makes it characteristically mathematical. On the other hand, the arguments in praxeology up to now rely almost exclusively on one's intuition of its notions. Indeed. This is crucial. The dfference is much bigger than most Austrians realize.
Solomon:Anyway, the idea of a mathematical deduction, as opposed to any other sort of deduction, is that it is independent of however one might intuit its premises; this is precisely what makes it characteristically mathematical. On the other hand, the arguments in praxeology up to now rely almost exclusively on one's intuition of its notions.
Indeed. This is crucial. The dfference is much bigger than most Austrians realize.
I still do not understand that argument. Do you not believe that you can precisely describe basic human understandings as axioms? Do you not understand that all things (such as the communication of colors and shapes) require that your listener or reader has basic intuitive understanding of those concepts?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Obviously I am not talking about turning it into mathematics.
But if it is really deductive logic, I don't see why you couldn't lay out the deduction. Otherwise, I think the methodology is messier than many would like to admit (and there's nothing wrong with that).
Perhaps you should give us some less abstract examples. Would be interesting to see, what you got.
Rooster:But if it is really deductive logic, I don't see why you couldn't lay out the deduction. Otherwise, I think the methodology is messier than many would like to admit (and there's nothing wrong with that).
Obviously it is not deductive logic. So you better not wait for it.
lol, If someone published Human Action, in Predicate Logic, that would be a very dry read...
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
Solomon: Anyway, the idea of a mathematical deduction, as opposed to any other sort of deduction, is that it is independent of however one might intuit its premises; this is precisely what makes it characteristically mathematical. On the other hand, the arguments in praxeology up to now rely almost exclusively on one's intuition of its notions.
Anyway, the idea of a mathematical deduction, as opposed to any other sort of deduction, is that it is independent of however one might intuit its premises; this is precisely what makes it characteristically mathematical. On the other hand, the arguments in praxeology up to now rely almost exclusively on one's intuition of its notions.
I think this is crux of the matter. It would be impossible for Praxeology and AE to stand up to mathematical rigor. It is by it's nature more comparable to scientific theory where a logical flow or chain would represent a model or structure. The model in and of itself is not proof, but observations and data that support the conclusions posited by the framework lend credence to its veracity until overwhelming evidence compel's people to logically accept it as "fact".
Orthogonal:I think this is crux of the matter. It would be impossible for Praxeology and AE to stand up to mathematical rigor. It is by it's nature more comparable to scientific theory where a logical flow or chain would represent a model or structure
I think that some models or a "sign language" could be designed to illustrate praxeology, valuation and Austrian Economic themes in general. I would like to cooperate in something like that.
Solomon:On the other hand, the arguments in praxeology up to now rely almost exclusively on one's intuition of its notions.
Can you list the propositions that require intuition? All I can think of are the "subsidiary axioms": labor is a disutility, there exists a variety of human and natural resources, a monetary economy has indirect exchange, and firms aim at maximizing monetary profits.
It seems to me the OP is correct. Praxeology is a body of chains of reasoning deduced from axioms, and hence can be expressed formally, i.e. numbering the statements and putting them in a logical order (premises before conclusion). I suppose the chains of reasoning could also be expressed in symbolic logic, but I'm not sure it would be useful. As Rothbard points out, this would violate Occam's Razor.
Lilburne:For example, with a numbered chain of deductions, we could respond to critics who respect that sort of thing, with, "Okay so you don't like our conclusions, but exactly which number in this chain of deductions do you dispute?" That would have the effect of focusing the debate quickly upon the true bone of contention, and quite possibly efficiently delivering our opponents a "blank out" moment, when they realize they can't reasonably dispute any of our inferences.
Exactly. Debating would be much more efficient if arguments were presented in standard form.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Please use the search function. This has been asked a dozen times or so. Deductive reasoning is a form of logical reasoning, that's all. What you're asking is for formalisation. Why hasn't this been done? My guess it's a lot of work. So, if you or anyone else wishes to see this happen, try and make it so. Austrian econ is axiomatic-deductive.
The same is true of logical deduction, of which mathematical deduction is arguably a subset (though this has been disputed.) The problem with calling Austrian econ deductive is that it omits most of what is going on and differentiates it from sciences using the hypothetico-deductive methodology. Deduction is purely inference from premises to a conclusion (Austrian econ differs wrt to the epistemological character of its postulates to "positive" economics; both are "deductive" though.)
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State deductively proves much of Austrian theory in informal language.
Political Atheists Blog
Jon Irenicus: Please use the search function. This has been asked a dozen times or so. Deductive reasoning is a form of logical reasoning, that's all. What you're asking is for formalisation. Why hasn't this been done? My guess it's a lot of work. So, if you or anyone else wishes to see this happen, try and make it so. Austrian econ is axiomatic-deductive.
OK, most of these threads should disappear if you use the search function I guess.
I would think that, 50 years or so after the major texts were written, to say it's a lot of work is hardly satisfactory. It must be quite unclear what the actual propositions are, and what are the deductive arguments that support them.
No, it really is a lot of work and the benefit from it is dubious (does little to nothing to advance the science to laymen, and it distracts from issues like monetary economics). (Logical) formalisation is by no means simple and is highly prone to the ambiguities that occasion in natural language. Unless you're highly trained in formal logic, translating a text like HA is a huge task. I think Ludwig van den Hauwe is interested in doing it though (and I know of a couple of Austrians who are as well, I can ask them for contact details if you wish to get in touch.) Austrians are very clear on their arguments and what supports them (Hoppe summarises some of the key ones in his works, look up Geoffrey Plauche's paper on Aristotelianism and apriorism for references); the issue is more how to formalise them, which requires training and experience in formal logic, i.e. how to translate them into formal language, which is wherein the difficulty usually lies. Very few major Austrians are trained in formal logic to my knowledge (their training is usually in Economics, which includes no such component), and the skill required to translate a book like HA is not something you can acquire just by doing it as a hobby; even Philosophy graduates only get a synoptic understanding of it unless they choose to specialise.
Jon Irenicus:Austrian econ is axiomatic-deductive.
The point is that it is not so. The formal epxression he wants therefore was not done because it cannot be done.
Yet it is so... but good luck parsing its first principles into formal logic without the requisite knowledge or time/effort.
Jon Irenicus: No, it really is a lot of work and the benefit from it is dubious (does little to nothing to advance the science to laymen, and it distracts from issues like monetary economics). (Logical) formalisation is by no means simple and is highly prone to the ambiguities that occasion in natural language. Unless you're highly trained in formal logic, translating a text like HA is a huge task. I think Ludwig van den Hauwe is interested in doing it though (and I know of a couple of Austrians who are as well, I can ask them for contact details if you wish to get in touch.) Austrians are very clear on their arguments and what supports them (Hoppe summarises some of the key ones in his works, look up Geoffrey Plauche's paper on Aristotelianism and apriorism for references); the issue is more how to formalise them, which requires training and experience in formal logic, i.e. how to translate them into formal language, which is wherein the difficulty usually lies. Very few major Austrians are trained in formal logic to my knowledge (their training is usually in Economics, which includes no such component), and the skill required to translate a book like HA is not something you can acquire just by doing it as a hobby; even Philosophy graduates only get a synoptic understanding of it unless they choose to specialise.
What book would you recommend to learn formal logic?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."