tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post7125369385269453826..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Prediction, Empiricism and Austrian EconomicsLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-24002647589397997182013-10-15T00:00:15.231-07:002013-10-15T00:00:15.231-07:00Good text!
It is perplexing that some people, inc...Good text!<br /><br />It is perplexing that some people, including I, _actually_ first thought that Austrian Economics had, one way or the other, it's basis in some at least remotely empirical, or at least pragmatical and/or not utterly unrespectable, approach to understanding _this_ reality (vs. some conjured fairy tale world). Imagine the shock when these people learn, as I did, that it has no basis whatsoever except perhaps some vague praxeo-"logical", (read: "rhetorical") argumentation resembling dialectics (maybe), based on "self-evident" (read: "guessed") "a priori axioms" of human action.<br /><br />Oh my God, this is probably what we would have gotten if Plato or Descartes would have written extensevily on economics. Well, in fact Plato did, and he produced quite similiar rubbish.<br /><br />Why, oh why, should some philosophers dictate how this world in it's true essence (or whatever) happens to be? Why can't we just learn from experience? It takes time, I admit, but every time in recorded history the method of trying, failing, trying, succeeding and finally, learning, has produced far better results than informal vague argumentation with poorly defined terminology based on axioms invented by the "I think this is clear, isn't it? At least it feels so" -methodology... Maybe we just aren't able to learn to learn?erno-petterinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-43308438992869524782011-09-01T17:32:37.692-07:002011-09-01T17:32:37.692-07:00Sorry, this is off topic but check out this link. ...Sorry, this is off topic but check out this link. http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/jzkfa/a_thought_experiment/<br /><br />It's very similar to the astroid hitting the earth. Very stupid ethics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-76589793473070582252011-09-01T06:01:27.208-07:002011-09-01T06:01:27.208-07:00"There is never anything offered in your hist...<i>"There is never anything offered in your historical <b>anecdotes</b> that refutes that basic analysis."</i><br /><br />Anecdote<br />noun, used from Late 17 century<br /><br />(1)secret or hitherto unpublished details of history<br />(2) A narrative of an amusing of striking incident (originally an item of gossip)<br />(3) (Art) the portrayal of a small narrative incident; a painting protraying a small narrtaive incident<br /><br /><i>The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 1, A-M</i>, Oxford, 1993.<br />p. 76.<br /><br />Buy a dictionary, read the definition of "anecdote". Read it again, again and again, until the definition penetrates whatever it is you call your mind.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-25803955473732605192011-09-01T03:37:43.892-07:002011-09-01T03:37:43.892-07:00"Since empiricism is ultimately based on prax..."Since empiricism is ultimately based on praxeology"<br /><br />This is burning my eyes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-65036620580019324082011-08-31T14:59:34.598-07:002011-08-31T14:59:34.598-07:00I have been reading Bohm-Bawerk recently, and I fi...I have been reading Bohm-Bawerk recently, and I find it notable that -- despite his "subjectivism" -- he appeals to empirical evidence frequently. Indeed, there are passages where you can find him saying (e.g., about "roundaboutness") that reason alone would never lead us to expect this result, and we know it only from observation. This is similar to the Mises passage you quote about the disutility of labor.<br /><br />In short, today's Mises/Rothbard people are not particularly representative of the historical Austrian school. (To be fair, it's also true that modern neoclassicals have precious little in common with the classicals).Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14943136764424893492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-15406080696655348792011-08-31T14:31:28.239-07:002011-08-31T14:31:28.239-07:00"praxeology does not require empiricism, when...<i>"praxeology does not require empiricism, when it comes to acquiring any knowledge at all."</i><br /><br /><i>Given that praxeology is a system of deduction, the only way that it would not require empiricism is if ALL of its axioms and ALL hidden and stated premises in ALL arguments were analytic, a priori or (if such a thing exists) synthetic a priori.</i><br /><br />That's what Mises held. Rothbard differed.<br /><br /><i>That is not the case - as even some of the foundational axioms are empirical. Rothbard overthrows even the synthetic a priori or a priori status of the human action axiom, undermining the pure aprioristic character of the system even more.</i><br /><br />Not really, because even if we grant Rothbard's contention that human action is empirical, we can still deduce from that.<br /><br />A priori axioms are not the only propositions we can deduce from you know. Praxeology is a priori and it is concomitant with empiricism.<br /><br /><i>Also, I see there is a sentence in the original post that could be miscontrued, where I say "where they declare that their economics is not an empirical science."</i><br /><br /><i>That was poorly phrased. I have clarified it as</i><br /><br /><i>"this point should be stressed to all and every Austrian pushing the sort of nonsense I have quoted above, where they declare that their economics is somehow completely independent of empiricism."</i><br /><br />Of course that's what you meant to say, it's more vitriolic! The original statement too charitable. LOL<br /><br />Mises held that the human action axiom is a proposition that is a priori to all experience, Rothbard held otherwise. <br /><br />At any rate, the propositions derived in praxeology are not perpetually hypothetical. They are apodictically true propositions.<br /><br />Since empiricism is ultimately based on praxeology, but praxeology is not ultimately based on empiricism, we can say that empiricism depends on praxeology, not the other way around, even if empirical propositions are not answerable by praxeology. The justification is proximately empirical, and the branches going back can be both praxeological and empirically dependent, culminating in a root rationalist foundation.<br /><br />The quantity theory of money: "Given an increase in the supply of money, then assuming the demand for money is unchanged, the purchasing power of money will fall." is a proposition that is necessarily true. It follows from the nature of money. It is not only hypothetical, where we can only know if it will hold true in the future by testing it. We can know at the outset prior to testing it.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-4991204464220333842011-08-31T13:41:28.453-07:002011-08-31T13:41:28.453-07:00I certainly do not claim that Austrian economics i...I certainly do not claim that Austrian economics is devoid of empirical evidence. The evidence supports the stripped down concepts of action and economic ignorance. The theory develops from that. There is never anything offered in your historical anecdotes that refutes that basic analysis. In a chicken/egg analysis, the axioms come first. In an alternative universe where the axioms didn't exist or were different, things might be different. What historical events do you claim refute the basic action and ignorance axioms? Further, do you agree or disagree with the basic Austrian insistence that people do not respond to stimuli like projectiles or molecules? <br /><br />The Keynesians ALWAYS ignore the universal truth of the axioms which are matter-of-fact, self evident and based, for lack of a better term, upon common sense.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-15314638372652039442011-08-31T13:07:50.547-07:002011-08-31T13:07:50.547-07:00I don't even get the point of this argument. ...I don't even get the point of this argument. Austrian economists use historical episodes or current data in their arguments and make predictions about the results of policies <i>all the time</i>. All you have to do is read their blogs to see this.<br /><br />Given this evidence, what does it even mean for Austrian Economics to be an 'a priori' science?argosyjonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-10185534586870365852011-08-31T12:14:54.489-07:002011-08-31T12:14:54.489-07:00The fact that 'austrians' (seriously, come...<i>The fact that 'austrians' (seriously, come with a better name)</i><br /><br />Well, "The Austrian School" makes me think of Arnold Schwarzenegger's awesome bad action movies; I think it perfectly exemplifies the theory, and I hope that mental image helps you tolerate their existence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-26470879450142793712011-08-31T11:59:00.560-07:002011-08-31T11:59:00.560-07:00Also, I see there is a sentence in the original po...Also, I see there is a sentence in the original post that could be miscontrued, where I say "where they declare that their economics is not an empirical science."<br /><br />That was poorly phrased. I have clarified it as <br /><br />"this point should be stressed to all and every Austrian pushing the sort of nonsense I have quoted above, where they declare that their economics is somehow completely independent of empiricism."Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-63287468214185291162011-08-31T11:54:33.689-07:002011-08-31T11:54:33.689-07:00Human action is more predictable than you may thin...Human action is more predictable than you may think. But that's not the case is a fundamental axiom you use so we won't get anywhere with it.<br /><br />Off course under all this lies the issue of determinism, free will, information entropy and other complex stuff at how you look at the world. <br /><br />The fact that 'austrians' (seriously, come with a better name) are metaphysical instead of positivist in these issues prevents any interesting conversation on the challenging of these axioms, intellectually not very stimulative tbh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-74110450096802219932011-08-31T11:45:50.264-07:002011-08-31T11:45:50.264-07:00"praxeology does not require empiricism, when...<i>"praxeology does not require empiricism, when it comes to acquiring any knowledge at all."</i><br /><br />Given that praxeology is a system of deduction, the only way that it would not require empiricism is if ALL of its axioms and ALL hidden and stated premises in ALL arguments were analytic, a priori or (if such a thing exists) synthetic a priori. <br /><br />That is not the case - as even some of the foundational axioms are empirical. Rothbard overthrows even the synthetic a priori or a priori status of the human action axiom, undermining the pure aprioristic character of the system even more.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-81832516998094015782011-08-31T11:37:42.920-07:002011-08-31T11:37:42.920-07:00"Mises' whole career was essentially a ju...<i>"Mises' whole career was essentially a justification for economics being an a priori science, not an empirical one as in the natural sciences like chemistry and physics."</i><br /><br /><i>I am well aware that Mises and Austrians don't regard the method for social sciences (including economics) as the same as that of the natural sciences, and that they adhere to the concept of methdological dualism.</i><br /><br />Then why did you write that Mises held that economic science is like natural sciences?<br /><br /><i>But the issue was clearly whether economics "is not a predictive, empirical science like chemistry and physics."</i><br /><br />Yes, and you fallaciously argued that Mises held that it was.<br /><br /><i>In fact, Mises makes it perfectly clear that - for all of his methdological dualism - he does think that “Economics too can make predictions in the sense in which this ability is attributed to the natural sciences."</i><br /><br />There you go again with the same fallacious interpretation of that passage.<br /><br />He was talking about ABILITY to make predictions, not METHODOLOGY in HOW to make predictions.<br /><br />This is a discussion on the methodology of predictions between the Austrian School and Empiricist Schools. <br /><br /><i>Obviously he still thinks economics has a different fundamental methdology.</i><br /><br />That's what I have been trying to convey to you the whole time after you incorrectly claimed Mises held that economics predictions can be made the way natural science makes predictions.<br /><br /><i>But the belief that praxeology is not dependent on empiricism - that it somehow transcends it - is wholly false.</i><br /><br />Incorrect. You have not at all shown how that is the case. <br /><br />I on the other hand have shown that empiricism is based on praxeologically derived foundations, namely, that the truth of things does not change over time. Action presupposes this to be the case.<br /><br />Empiricism requires praxeology, praxeology does not require empiricism, when it comes to acquiring any knowledge at all.<br /><br />Once knowledge expands, then further propositions become empirical or praxeologically founded.<br /><br />The <i>basis</i> of all knowledge is praxeological. Researchers who perform experiments are necessarily bounded to the logical categories of action themselves, and thus all epistemology is grounded in action.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-72684123860997623242011-08-31T11:30:05.545-07:002011-08-31T11:30:05.545-07:00More, to accept that
"What Mises argued was ...<i>More, to accept that</i><br /><br /><i>"What Mises argued was that to the extent that the praxeologist makes empirical (synthetic) assumptions in the course of his reasoning, the knowledge of those assumptions are ultimately grounded in observation.</i><br /><br /><i>is to accept that praxeology requires basic concepts of empiricism to even work properly.</i><br /><br />Non sequitur, combined with vague appeals to subjective "work properly."<br /><br />That making empirical arguments requires observations in order to be justified does not refute praxeology as such. It just means that just like empiricism is alone not sufficient to understand all of reality, so too is praxeology not sufficient to understand all of reality.<br /><br />Praxeology is for human action and economic theory, empiricism is for natural sciences, and economic history.<br /><br />Disutility of labor is an economic history proposition, not an economics theory as such. We have to go out and observe who would rather work than have leisure, and who would rather have leisure than work. Every data we collect will necessarily be historical, and based on the ideas and values of the individual at the time they acted which you then observed.<br /><br />Economics as such does not deal with history. It deals with regular patterns in human action. Law of marginal utility, quantity theory of money, etc, etc.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-8139866078319854062011-08-31T11:27:34.647-07:002011-08-31T11:27:34.647-07:00"Mises' whole career was essentially a ju...<i>"Mises' whole career was essentially a justification for economics being an a priori science, not an empirical one as in the natural sciences like chemistry and physics."</i><br /><br />I am well aware that Mises and Austrians don't regard the method for social sciences (including economics) as the same as that of the natural sciences, and that they adhere to the concept of methdological dualism. <br /><br />But the issue was clearly whether economics "is not a predictive, empirical science like chemistry and physics."<br /><br />In fact, Mises makes it perfectly clear that - for all of his methdological dualism - he does think that “Economics too can make predictions in the sense in which this ability is attributed to the natural sciences." Obviously he still thinks economics has a different fundamental methdology.<br /><br />But the belief that praxeology is not dependent on empiricism - that it somehow transcends it - is wholly false.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-23929625552437245632011-08-31T11:25:28.936-07:002011-08-31T11:25:28.936-07:00Statement 1:
"If Mises accepts that disutili...<i>Statement 1:</i><br /><br /><i>"If Mises accepts that disutility of labor is empirical, then what's the problem? No Austrian has ever asserted that the necessary a priori propositions are capable of explaining everything to do with economics.<br />The disutility of labor is an empirical proposition, ..."</i><br /><br /><i>Statement 2:</i><br /><br /><i>Praxeology does not at all "require the basis concepts of empiricism."</i><br /><br /><i>Sheer brazen logical contradictio</i><br /><br />No you idiot, it's not a contradiction, because I never claimed that praxeology is sufficient for justifying the validity of the disutility of labor proposition! <br /><br />Statement (1) is a statement that the disutility of labor is an empirical proposition. SO far so good? Nobody denied this. <br /><br />Statement (2) is a statement that praxeology does not require the basic concepts of empiricism. <br /><br />Statement (1) and statement (2) do not contradict each other at all. You are just MISTAKEN in believing that I hold the position that praxeology is sufficient at justifying an individual's disutility of labor.<br /><br />Are you trolling or are you really this dense?Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-67533214775358189472011-08-31T11:21:27.659-07:002011-08-31T11:21:27.659-07:00"Empiricism claims that such a priori proposi...<i>"Empiricism claims that such a priori propositions are not valid,</i><br /><br /><i>What empiricist has argued that analytic propositions are not valid?? Or that deduction is invalid?</i><br /><br />Straw man and straw man. <br /><br />I never said that empiricists reject analytic propositions and logical propositions.<br /><br />I said that empiricists claim that a priori, i.e. non-empirical, non-hypothetical, propositions do not say anything about the real world. That's why they are empiricists!<br /><br />Empiricists hold that all propositions are either analytic, and hence merely verbal conventions, or they are empirical, and hence hypothetical.<br /><br />My argument was that empiricists reject a third type of proposition, which are propositions that are neither analytic/definitional, nor empirical/hypothetical.<br /><br />But because they reject that third type of proposition, their own doctrine collapses. For if ALL propositions are either analytic/definitional or empirical/hypothetical, then that very proposition about all propositions must itself be either analytic/definitional or empirical/hypothetical.<br /><br />Either way, empiricism does not qualify as a valid epistemology, at least when it comes to human action and economics. For if the proposition about all propositions is analytic, then it's just a verbal convention about how we define propositions. Well so what, I'll just define them differently, because we're free to do that. If on the other hand the proposition about all propositions is empirical/hypothetical, then it is only a hypothesis about how things are, which means it must be open in principle to the possibility that there exists a third type of proposition, which empiricism claims does not exist. Those are rationalist, a priori synthetic claims.<br /><br /><i>Name one philosopher, etc. This is a statement of laughable, gross ignorance.</i><br /><br />Please read what I said again and realize that you set up yet another one of your millions of straw men. You suck at this.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-10648270573328943322011-08-31T11:13:22.558-07:002011-08-31T11:13:22.558-07:00More, to accept that
"What Mises argued was...More, to accept that <br /><br /><i>"What Mises argued was that to the extent that the praxeologist <b>makes empirical (synthetic) assumptions in the course of his reasoning, the knowledge of those assumptions are ultimately grounded in observation.</b> </i><br /><br />is to accept that praxeology requires basic concepts of empiricism to even work properly.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-27731062833957775642011-08-31T11:11:44.803-07:002011-08-31T11:11:44.803-07:00"Praxeology does not at all "require the...<i>"Praxeology does not at all "require the basis concepts of empiricism."</i><br /><br /><i>Let me get this straight: Praxeology does not at all require any basic concepts of empiricism, such as basic empirical evidence to support a posteriori any synthetic proposition it uses?</i><br /><br />It depends on the logical status of the propositions you are making. If your propositions are empirical, then praxeology is not sufficient to justify it. If your propositions are not empirical, then praxeology is sufficient.<br /><br /><i>You assert this rubbish after it is made clear to you that Mises himself requires empirical support for axioms like disutility of labor?</i><br /><br />That an individual should experience disutility of labor is an empirical proposition, does not at all compromise the concept of praxeologically derived propositions.<br /><br /><i>If seriously believe that praxeology does not at all require basic concepts of empiricism, how do you know that the disutility of labor axiom will continue to hold true in the future?</i><br /><br />I never claimed the disutility of labor is a praxeologically derived proposition.<br /><br /><i>How do you know you can accept it as true now without appeal to past empirical data and an inductive argument?</i><br /><br />You can't. Nobody claimed you can.<br /><br /><i>Or if you reject induction, how do you know you can accept it as true now without some Popperian falsificationist argument by hypothetico-deduction using empirical evidence to test your hypothesis?</i><br /><br />I don't accept it as true a priori. Action is not by itself sufficient for us to deduce whether or not an individual will experience disutility or utility of labor.<br /><br />But action can be sufficient for us to conclude, for example, the law of marginal utility to be always true, or the quantity theory of money (if there is an increase in the quantity of money, then provided there is no change in the demand for money, then the purchasing power of money will fall from where it otherwise would have been) to always be true. No experience can ever falsify them.<br /><br />Why are you going on and on about the disutility of labor? It's a single empirical proposition. What does that have to do with the meat and bones of the validity of rationalism vis a vis empiricism?Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-74185739826128992192011-08-31T11:11:34.914-07:002011-08-31T11:11:34.914-07:00Statement 1:
"If Mises accepts that disutili...Statement 1:<br /><br /><i>"If Mises accepts that <b>disutility of labor is empirical</b>, then what's the problem? No Austrian has ever asserted that the necessary a priori propositions are capable of explaining everything to do with economics.<br />The disutility of labor <b>is an empirical proposition,</b> ..."</i><br /><br />Statement 2:<br /><br /><i>Praxeology does not at all "require the basis concepts of empiricism."</i><br /><br />Sheer brazen logical contradiction.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-90195197894767686222011-08-31T11:07:01.617-07:002011-08-31T11:07:01.617-07:00"Nobody in history has ever refuted the human...<i>"Nobody in history has ever refuted the human action axiom without contradicting themselves. Whether you take the side of Mises that action is a synthetic a priori proposition, or Rothbard's side that action is an a posteriori empirical proposition, it doesn't matter t othe validity of what logically follows from it."</i><br /><br />The human action axiom is a trivially true proposition - no one has "ever refuted" it because it doesn't require refutation.<br /><br />The level of logic in this argument is like some teenager sreaming that no one has "ever refuted the proposition that the sky is blue on a clear day!!"<br /><br /><i>"Whether you take the side of Mises that action is a synthetic a priori proposition, or Rothbard's side that action is an a posteriori empirical proposition, it doesn't matter t othe validity of what logically follows from it."</i><br /><br />The human action axiom is a trivial observation that can also be held by Marxists, communists, Keynesians, neoclassicals, monetarists, or any other economist you care to name. And there is nothing significant you can deduce from it without other premises, since the most simple, useful deductive argument like the syllogism requires 2 premises to infer anything.<br /><br />Praxeology requires any number of synthetic propositions that are hidden or stated premises in its deductive arguments.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-35163989537416811882011-08-31T11:03:18.283-07:002011-08-31T11:03:18.283-07:00"I didn't claim that economics was not a ...<i>"I didn't claim that economics was not a predictive science. I said economics is not a predictive, empirical science like that of chemistry and physics."</i><br /><br /><i>And that assertion is contradicted directly, clearly and explicitly by Mises:</i><br /><br /><i>"Economics too can make predictions in the sense in which this ability is attributed to the natural sciences."</i><br /><br />ABILITY, not METHODOLOGY. For the love of hanna, LK, Mises' whole career was essentially a justification for economics being an a priori science, not an empirical one as in the natural sciences like chemistry and physics.<br /><br />You are misreading that statement. You have to read Mises whole body of works to know what he meant when he says things that to the layman like you, can be taken in other ways.<br /><br />I provided a boatload of passages from Human Action detailing that Mises' attempt was to rescue economics from empiricist and historicist attacks.<br /><br />Hayek also held that positivism empiricism was the wrong methodology for economics. His Nobel Prize winning speech was a huge criticism of economists who try to mimic physicists.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-21877015974470608012011-08-31T11:02:35.963-07:002011-08-31T11:02:35.963-07:00It is precisely empiricism that requires the basic...<i>It is precisely empiricism that requires the basic concepts of praxeology!</i><br /><br />Wait ... did you really just try to argue that empiricism - the idea that there is some objectively knowable reality independent of human perception, which has locally predictable behavior - relies on praxeology - the idea that economic behavior is independent from human action - as a more fundamental concept? Really, you should write a book.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-47173835238025532482011-08-31T11:02:23.340-07:002011-08-31T11:02:23.340-07:00"Empiricism claims that such a priori proposi...<i>"Empiricism claims that such a priori propositions are not valid,</i><br /><br />That is ridiculous nonsense. What empiricist has argued that analytic propositions are not valid?? Or that deduction is invalid?<br /><br />Name one philosopher, etc. This is a statement of laughable, gross ignorance.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-17199052331369561382011-08-31T10:58:49.280-07:002011-08-31T10:58:49.280-07:00"Praxeology does not at all "require the...<i>"Praxeology does not at all "require the basis concepts of empiricism."</i><br /><br />Let me get this straight: Praxeology does not at all require <i>any</i> basic concepts of empiricism, such as basic empirical evidence to support <i>a posteriori</i> any synthetic proposition it uses?<br /><br />You assert this rubbish after it is made clear to you that Mises himself requires empirical support for axioms like disutility of labor?<br /><br />If seriously believe that praxeology does not at all require basic concepts of empiricism, how do you know that the disutility of labor axiom will continue to hold true in the future? How do you know you can accept it as true now without appeal to past empirical data and an inductive argument? Or if you reject induction, how do you know you can accept it as true now without some Popperian falsificationist argument by hypothetico-deduction using empirical evidence to test your hypothesis?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.com