tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post8405171393491810423..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Mises’ Praxeology: A CritiqueLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-11769840439212532022-02-13T17:47:56.012-08:002022-02-13T17:47:56.012-08:00I think another critique one can make against prae...I think another critique one can make against praexlogy is Mises's contradictions on what parts of a praexlogical argument can be falsfied. Mises admits that Praexologists introduce assumptions into their arguments that must be verified by experience, i.e. emperical data in order to be true. However, on the other hand, he also believes that praxeological arguments themselves are unfalsfiable. This seems utterly bizzare to me. How can you have the ability to falsify the assumptions you use in an argument but not the argument itself? <br /><br />Take the following syllogism. <br />1.Tall People have IQ's over 200. <br />2.Jill is a tall person.<br />Therefore, Jill must have an IQ over 200. <br /><br />It seems strange to argue that one can falsify either 1 or 2 and indirectly falsify the conclusion but not falsify the conclusion directly. <br /><br />BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-54259815779839929442016-10-20T07:24:24.980-07:002016-10-20T07:24:24.980-07:00Good collection of refutations and weaknesses in P...Good collection of refutations and weaknesses in Praxeology. Though I see Praxeology where it's foundations are based on simple axioms has some merit.<br /><br />I'd summarize them in two statements:<br /><br />~ Descartes was wrong. Correct is "I am, therefore I think." I can't think about what exists without existing as a thinker. Existence precedes thinking.<br /><br />~ Economics is grounded in deduction AND induction: There are entities other than me and some of those entities are of the same nature as me--- human. That is grasped by observation. Calculation, causal, and correlated relationships can be estimated due to the constraints imposed by an entity's nature when considered individually, in small groups, or in large numbers. It's not axiomatic that you, now reading this, are a human like me. It's inductive not deductive.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09003475059698897102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-35912693323445954052016-06-23T17:37:17.370-07:002016-06-23T17:37:17.370-07:00An excellent analysis - thanks. I would not use P...An excellent analysis - thanks. I would not use Popper for support, but any system that is independent of empirical evidence is not science. And economics is attempting to describe the real world, unlike a pure mathematical system. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09437621518830906898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-58294411705975687562016-06-21T20:43:50.049-07:002016-06-21T20:43:50.049-07:00"To this day, this failure to recognize the l..."To this day, this failure to recognize the limited power of a priori synthetic propositions to generate substantive implications for economic behaviour characterises neo-Austrian writings in defence of Mises”<br /><br />NOW I understand why a guy who was trying to argue with me in regards to my insistence that Capitalism had real connections to slavery - kept trying to insist that it could be true because "Economic Theory" proved otherwise. I think I'm right in my inclinations that History is a much better discipline for answering such questions as "What actually happened?"Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11890229869783893118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-27362314404880220552015-06-02T23:50:15.209-07:002015-06-02T23:50:15.209-07:00To be honest, I really do not know whether Higgs&#...To be honest, I really do not know whether Higgs' uses the praxeological method.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-8394576276350110342015-06-02T23:16:12.921-07:002015-06-02T23:16:12.921-07:00Thanks for this LK!
I have to present Robert Higg...Thanks for this LK! <br />I have to present Robert Higgs book "Crisis and Leviathan" in a seminar tomorrow. <br />Would you say Higgs applies the same methodology as Mises?Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17630348259409868551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-58769601807710496462014-08-11T04:16:03.591-07:002014-08-11T04:16:03.591-07:00Programming is very similar to praxeology method. ...Programming is very similar to praxeology method. (synthetic apriori)Gregoriohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10319509671890042325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-77857986553229924272012-04-15T07:34:19.595-07:002012-04-15T07:34:19.595-07:00TL;DR:
Praxeology is pure faith-based pseudoscienc...TL;DR:<br />Praxeology is pure faith-based pseudoscience, a sick and disgusting religious mania entirely unworthy of any thinking human being.<br /><br />As a side note: "The merit that Fascism has [by "saving European civilization"] won for itself will live on eternally in history." (von Mises, "Liberalism" ch.18).<br />One wonders what Lew Rockwell has to say about this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-88884889663897372852012-04-06T10:44:13.666-07:002012-04-06T10:44:13.666-07:00This critique is fraught with fallacies and factua...This critique is fraught with fallacies and factual errors. See http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard38.html to set the record straight.Bardhyl N. Salihuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13425822676711416838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-33919756492475129192011-12-04T08:57:03.472-08:002011-12-04T08:57:03.472-08:00Olav,
there is a huge difference between soundne...Olav, <br /><br />there is a huge difference between soundness and validity, something may be logically valid but it can also be unsound at the same time.Isaac"Izzy"Marmolejohttp://thepunished.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-20224972810748299682011-11-15T16:37:05.374-08:002011-11-15T16:37:05.374-08:00Hi, I think you're wrong but I would like to s...Hi, I think you're wrong but I would like to see your answer. I'm convinced of Misesian methodology, however I had some doubts about the subsidiary assumptions (such as the disutility of labor) but after giving it thought and reading for instance Zanotti, I think Mises is correct and that you interpreted him wrong.<br /><br />You wrote: "It is clear from all this that Mises’ praxeology does have severe flaws in its verbal chain of logic and argumentation. When unreal or false subsidiary hypotheses are used in an a priori argument, the resulting inferences do not describe the world in which we actually live. That is, any conclusions that are necessarily drawn by deduction will only be true of the imaginary world where one’s subsidiary hypotheses are hypothetically true. But that imaginary world is not the real world we know and live in. It is a fantasy world."<br /><br />The theory is still A PRIORI VALID even if subsidiary hypotheses / assumptions are being used in its reasoning. The theory is VALID and can't be proven INVALID, however, the theory can be relevant or irrelevant, just as you noted yourself. Mises's position, if I understand it correctly, is that this however is the task of ECONOMIC HISTORY not of ECONOMIC THEORY. This is done through "understanding", and has nothing to do whatsoever with economic theory.Olavnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-62309867619068193772011-09-07T07:43:22.592-07:002011-09-07T07:43:22.592-07:00"But do you also believe that praxeology is t...<i>"But do you also believe that praxeology is trivial?"</i><br /><br />The various arguments of praxeology arrived at by deduction (or really in the <i>informal</i> chains of arguments you find in <i>Human Action</i>) by Mises are not trivial. I think many of them are simply wrong. For an example, see here:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/01/mises-on-ricardian-law-of-association.html<br /><br /><i>"Where I disagree is the part where ONLY praxeology can be used to obtain economic knowledge."</i><br /><br />Yes, you are right.<br />Of course, econonists use <i>both</i> deduction and induction in their science - a mix.<br /><br />What is ridiculous about Mises's praxeology is the attempt to practically abolish empirical evidence and to avoid using experience to test theories. Also, Mises's belief that he has "absolute" (apodictic) certainty because he allegedly used deduction from certain axioms. Of course, this apodictic certainty is nonsense - a number of starting axioms are synthetic propositions (not a priori ones) and the number of both hidden and present synthetic propositions in Mises's deduction requiring empirical support is vast.<br /><br />Praxeology reeks of the tired and now discredited "rationalist" project to knowledge from early modern European philosophy - the idea absolute truth come sonly from pure resoning from a few self evident axioms. <br /><br />Well, that's not how a complex subject like economics works. Pure apriorism is not a viable method except when you're doing things like pure mathematics.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-367292618285055622011-09-07T06:52:25.850-07:002011-09-07T06:52:25.850-07:00Thanks for the response LK. Just one more questio...Thanks for the response LK. Just one more question if you don't mind. You've mentioned that the human action axiom is trivial. But do you also believe that praxeology is trivial? While I've been reading Human Action, I'm thinking, doesn't everyone just assume a type of praxeological thinking. I mean, I just assume that people act toward some end. Duh! I don't need 100 pages to explain this to me. Where I disagree is the part where ONLY praxeology can be used to obtain economic knowledge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-66859703353953696462011-09-06T20:51:57.682-07:002011-09-06T20:51:57.682-07:00"What other economic theories, axioms, etc. a...<i>"What other economic theories, axioms, etc. are derived without the use of praxeology or a priori knowledge that are true? "</i><br /><br />I discuss that here:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/08/prediction-and-economics.html<br /><br /><i>"In this case, Mises appears to explicitly use empirical evidence which means that economics can actually use empirical evience? Am I understanding this correctly? "</i><br /><br />Mises makes these types of statements that are sheer nonsense:<br /><br /><i>"Economics, like logic and mathematics, is a display of abstract reasoning. Economics can <b>never be experimental and empirical</b>. "</i><br /><br />This is the worst type of rationalism (I mean by that word the extreme philosophical aprioristic systems like the systems of Leibnitz, Descartes etc.).<br /><br />But then Mises concedes that his praxeological arguments require <i>synthetic</i> propositions proven true by empirical evidence. It's an absurd contradiction. Later Austrians like Rothbard even retreated further and say that the human action axiom is empirical tooLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-61243511390912026322011-09-06T18:07:29.145-07:002011-09-06T18:07:29.145-07:00Thanks for the post LK. Let me see if I understan...Thanks for the post LK. Let me see if I understand one of your points correctly. Mises rejects empirical evidence in economics but then says that "Experience teaches that there is disutility of labor." In this case, Mises appears to explicitly use empirical evidence which means that economics can actually use empirical evience? Am I understanding this correctly? <br /><br />I've been reading Human Action the last couple of days and this comment jumped out at me when I read it. I guess the question is, why can't other methods be used instead of praxeology (according to Austrians)? What other economic theories, axioms, etc. are derived without the use of praxeology or a priori knowledge that are true?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-40922045585424576972011-02-28T13:31:14.358-08:002011-02-28T13:31:14.358-08:00There are four main ways in which praxeology can b...<i>There are four main ways in which praxeology can be criticised:<br />(1) questioning the truth of Mises’ axioms;<br />[...]</i><br /><br />I have some posts regarding (1) that I'm inviting comment/criticism on (from both sides of the argument). <a href="http://stickmanscorral.blogspot.com/2011/02/misess-action-axiom-or-false-dichotomy.html" rel="nofollow">Here</a> and <a href="http://stickmanscorral.blogspot.com/2011/02/george-selgin-on-action-axiom.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> if anyone's interested.Grant McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11868318397832070394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-89848704990770074112011-01-25T03:56:26.741-08:002011-01-25T03:56:26.741-08:00Here are some responses to your post:
"For e...Here are some responses to your post:<br /><br /><i>"For example, Leibniz’s monadology was an elaborate theory arrived at by aprioristic argument – but completely refuted by modern science." Yes, but Leibniz’s assumptions were not self-evident"</i><br /><br />You miss the point:<br /><br />"There is no reason to believe that apriorism provides a consistent and reliable method for obtaining true theories about the real world. Praxeology has obvious affinities with the theories of the great rationalist system-builders of the early modern period, like Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, whose systems, as we now know, were utterly false ... There is, then, no reason in principle why aprioristic systems must always be considered as consistently reliable and true ways of obtaining knowledge about the real world: many such systems have turned out to be false, and Mises’ praxeology could possibly be another such failed system, if we can show this convincingly by external and internal criticism."Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-28252981454989207012011-01-24T23:14:39.487-08:002011-01-24T23:14:39.487-08:00http://critiquesofcollectivism.blogspot.com/2011/0...http://critiquesofcollectivism.blogspot.com/2011/01/apodictic-certainty-of-praxeology.htmlJoanna Liberationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03683439858840562847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-43236537048328547332010-10-30T08:20:05.569-07:002010-10-30T08:20:05.569-07:00A most curious quote that Anonymous chooses to ref...A most curious quote that Anonymous chooses to refer to above. I am aghast at how he and (indirectly) the original author of that Mises.org post are trying to mesh Popper's central idea of falsifiability together with the principles of praxeology, claiming minor "inconsistencies". It's almost like saying oil and water are both liquids and should therefore mix... but for some minor differences in their organic make-up!<br /><br />On a side note, the following interview with Hayek elucidates very well his position on non-falsifiable theories: http://hayek.ufm.edu/index.php?title=Leo_Rosten_Part_I<br /><br />As I commented on another blog (http://goo.gl/t1cI):<br /><br /><i>In answering a question starting about his intellectual development from the surroundings of Fabian socialism (+/- 3.55min mark), Hayek says: "... Both the Marxists and Freudians had the dreadful habit of insisting that their theories were irrefutable; they [were] logically and absolutely cogent... And that led me to see that a theory that cannot be refuted is not scientific..."<br /><br />The funny thing is that this is almost exactly how I feel about the praxeology crowd - or, at least a large portion of them. I'm not disputing the logic of Mises' general assertion that people undertake conscious actions to improve their situations (a claim completely unremarkable in of itself), but I certainly see problems of application and, of course, broader issues of falsifiability.</i>Grant McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11868318397832070394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-77497710963078457212010-10-12T11:00:34.857-07:002010-10-12T11:00:34.857-07:00I personally prefer Imre Lakatos' approach to ...I personally prefer Imre Lakatos' approach to science over either Mises' or Popper's. The problem for Popper is that falsifiability is ultimately a trivial concept: replace one auxilliary clause and you have a new, as-yet-unfalsified hypothesis. The problem for Mises is that if your theories make a substantive prediction, you have a testable scientific hypothesis. If it doesn't make predictions or makes only trivial predictions [such as predicting (A or not A)], then whatever else its merits, it is not science.<br /><br />But one of the biggest problems I have with praxeology specifically is the ridiculous definition of "rational." It works out to mean "whatever seems like a good idea at the time." Whereas by the ordinary, normative sense of "rational," a lot of actions are irrational. So what happens in praxeology is you have a subtle equivocation: "rational" is defined non-normatively as "purposeful," then interpreted normatively ("Hey, if that's what they want to do…") to justify the libertarian ethos.James M. Jensen IIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17424548803826283101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-6399244046969054162010-10-05T18:04:38.778-07:002010-10-05T18:04:38.778-07:00Mises’ praxeology with its inferences not subject ...Mises’ praxeology with its inferences not subject to falsification on the ground of experience and facts is the <i>antithesis</i> of Popperian falsification.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-15932143537035060172010-10-05T10:51:12.073-07:002010-10-05T10:51:12.073-07:00It is likely that Popper will be better appreciate...It is likely that Popper will be better appreciated when he is better understood. His critical rationalism, his nonauthoritarian epistemology, and his indeterminism fit like a glove with the ideas of Mises and Hayek. His views on economics and state intervention in the market are inconsistent, and when the inconsistencies are eliminated, the thrust of his thinking is very much in the direction of minimal-state liberalism. <br /><br />http://mises.org/daily/689<br /><br />http://www.the-rathouse.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com