The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

How can Austrians test or prove their theories?

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 25 Replies | 8 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
35 Posts
Points 1,420
Tobbog posted on Tue, Sep 15 2009 4:08 PM

Hello, I have two questions. Please apologize my flawed English:

1. As I understand Austrian epistemology, empirical findings cannot prove or disprove any theory in social sciences, nor can they be applied in order to find a new theory, since reality is too complex for empirical testing and there is no possibility to conduct isolated laboratory experiments as in natural sciences.

But how then can one actually prove if any theory is right or wrong? And aren't praxeologigal theories also derived from real-life experiences, that is, empirical?

2. Why do Austrians get regularly attacked for using a priori-reasoning? Don't most economists also do it that way? I know that many of them also try to prove their theories with regression analysis, but most of them use econometrics which is also a priori. And, as far as I know, J.M. Keynes didn't ever use any kind of statistical analysis to prove or disprove his theories.

  • | Post Points: 170

All Replies

Top 75 Contributor
504 Posts
Points 7,405
Moderator

1. In terms of proving the theories, I would say the proof is in the nature of how the theories do not contradict the nature of things. I'm not sure if that's a sufficient explanation, but think about it for a moment, how does one prove Modus Ponens? Well it's easy, if p then q. p therefore q. I mean it's strange to think in this manner, but what I'm driving at is that the Austrian school's theories are more like logic driven proofs, where you look to see if the premises lead to a non-contradictory conclusion, so it's better to think of proof in this manner and less in the manner that the average positivist would (through measurement of a set of cases).

 

2. As for why the Austrian school gets attacked it's because often folks take the position that since the theories cannot be proven in terms of evidence [via induction] therefore the theories don't describe anything in terms of reality of humans and their economies. But this position can only go so far in terms of assuming no first principles for economics (which even modern economists aren't apt to take this position, although they'll never sign their name to it).

"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization.  Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism.  In a market process." -- liberty student

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
370 Posts
Points 4,730
Saan replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 4:27 PM

Both a priori and a posteriori  reasoning are valid. When empirical analyisis proves a priori reasoning, the confluence of the two shows valid philosophical theory.   Someone posted an excellent relation in another thread.  "If Mary walks 100 miles west, we know a priori that she walked 100 miles away from the east."  (unknown) Not only is this a priori knowledge, but it can also be observed and proved empirically.  ATBC demonstrates this very well.  It proves empirically the results of central bank action early in its description.   Since we do in fact have a central bank acting we can deduce the rest of the theory a priori.

 "...The post-totalitarian system contrives to force life into its most probable states...This system serves people only to the extent necessary to ensure that people will serve it

Vaclav Havel

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,669 Posts
Points 81,345
Suggested by Jon Irenicus

These are two interesting questions.

Regarding the former, there is no single "Austrian" consensus on these issues. In his later years Hayek came around to something of a Popperian position, and even now Caldwell rejects the use of Misesian a priorism to analyse interactions between numerous individuals. However, must Austrians would say that history cannot trump theory. As such there is no need to "test" or "falsify" theoretical claims. Now, there is the matter that the point of theory is to analyse history. Here, of course, empirical claims can be verified and falsified. For example, if I were to claim that sticky prices caused the recent recession to become worse and it turned out that, in fact, prices weren't particularly "sticky" then that would constitute a "refutation" of my claim.

As regards the latter, it wouldn't be far off the mark to say that Austrians actually analyse the real world to a far greater extent than mainstream economists do. Most mainstream models of the economy as pretty logically coherent, but the biggest criticism is that they're just not relevant. So in a very real sense it is Austrian economists who are the real empiricists.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
176 Posts
Points 3,895

Tobbog:

But how then can one actually prove if any theory is right or wrong?

The beauty about human action is that any attempt at refuting is evidence of human action itself.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
2,577 Posts
Points 45,620

Tobbog:

 

2. Why do Austrians get regularly attacked for using a priori-reasoning? Don't most economists also do it that way? I know that many of them also try to prove their theories with regression analysis, but most of them use econometrics which is also a priori. And, as far as I know, J.M. Keynes didn't ever use any kind of statistical analysis to prove or disprove his theories.

Academics are worried about the idea that scientific certainty can exist, as that can mean that it can be shown with certainty that their theories are false.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
370 Posts
Points 4,730
Saan replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 4:51 PM

GilesStratton:
So in a very real sense it is Austrian economists who are the real empiricists.

I get the feeling sometimes that you are just here to tell Austrians they are Full of it, but this statement does ring true. I would say the Austrian theories identify the acting agents of causation, prove this empirically, then solve the resulting problems a  priori. What do you think?

 "...The post-totalitarian system contrives to force life into its most probable states...This system serves people only to the extent necessary to ensure that people will serve it

Vaclav Havel

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
209 Posts
Points 3,005

"....theories also derived from real-life experiences, that is, empirical?"'

The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical

does austrian theory say that an increase in the amount of money, without fail, will decrease the purchasing power of existing money?

is that the extent of so called austrian theory? 

has observation, experience or experiment in real-life shown otherwise?

would a declining price of gas 'adjusted for inflation' be a real-life observation of purchasing power increasing while money supply also increases - for the same amount of gas in the same amount of time?

would a fixed money supply bring bring equal gas prices with the same volume and in the same amount of time?  or is something else lost elsewhere?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
396 Posts
Points 4,695

Anyone who attended elementary school was taught that scientific method involves either the active form of experimentation or the passive form of observation of automatic events.  Praxeology is the study of human action.  Can human action be observed?  Yes.

What constitutes "proof" is opinion.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
7,643 Posts
Points 132,735
MVP
SystemAdministrator

Caley McKibbin:
Anyone who attended elementary school was taught that scientific method involves either the active form of experimentation or the passive form of observation of automatic events. 

If you can believe it, I was not taught the scientific method.  I had to learn it on my own in my early 20s.  Yay public education!

If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
608 Posts
Points 13,200
Poptech replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 10:51 PM

The best recent example of Austrian Economics being proven right...

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
396 Posts
Points 4,695
Suggested by Jon Irenicus

Tobbog:
2. Why do Austrians get regularly attacked for using a priori-reasoning? Don't most economists also do it that way?

The people who attack have different, pre-conceived conclusions and select for methods that allow the acceptance only of the range of conclusions palatable to them.  Despite hiding behind the noble name of science, these people have either no understanding or no care for scientific principles.

You are correct that all other economists reason a priori, which is to say, use logic.  That is saying nothing.  Every time you press a key or put one foot in front of the other or even just think a thought you are expecting something to happen that has not already happened.  It's just common sense.

The problem with behavioural experimentation is that you can only learn from controlled experiments.  Controlling a behavioural experiment means that the behaviour is determined insofar by the experimenter.  Generalized individual behaviour can be learned from experiments; that is called Psychology.

  • | Post Points: 45
Top 500 Contributor
Male
97 Posts
Points 1,610
The Rev replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 11:49 PM

I think for some, it's easier to be sure of beliefs that you can't prove wrong.  If you refuse to question, or investigate a theory, and accept that because it is logical, it must therefore be correct, you're no different than anyone else subscribing to any other religion.  There are alot of Austrian enthusiasts, because of the emotional attachment they have to their political beliefs, who fall into this trap, and I believe it is because of them that the philosophy itself is attacked.

Basically, you have to remember that no matter how good an idea is, roughly 90% of the people who value it do so for emotional reasons, and no matter how smart they may seem to be, aren't actually thinking that much.  Humanity is largely a race of followers, not thinkers.

The Rev

Lifes a piece of shit, when you look at it

Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true

Just remember it's all a show, keep em laughing as you go

Just remember that the last laugh is on you

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
396 Posts
Points 4,695

The Rev:

Basically, you have to remember that no matter how good an idea is, roughly 90% of the people who value it do so for emotional reasons, and no matter how smart they may seem to be, aren't actually thinking that much.

The problem with that number is that accounts of pre-Austrian beliefs by the most famous AS economists seems to indicate otherwise in their cases.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
396 Posts
Points 4,695

The Rev:

If you refuse to question, or investigate a theory, and accept that because it is logical, it must therefore be correct, you're no different than anyone else subscribing to any other religion.

I don't find religion logical.  Most religious people don't pretend to be logical  They call it "faith".

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 2 (26 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap