To what extent is positivism or economic empiricism incompatible with Austrian Economics?
In other words:
To what extent is Austrian epistemology an essential part of its economic theory?
To the extent that positivism is garbled nonsense and Austrianism isn't.
False. Logical positivism acknowledges that there are analytic a priori truths. For instance, the positivists believed in mathematical knowledge - many of its original proponents being logicians and mathematicians.
Yeah, they believed it was conventional, true by definition &c. Analytic is synonymous with trivial. It's hardly a huge concession. As for the use of statistics, Murphy is refuting a specific argument by Greenspan, so it is proper here - the logical holes in Greenspan's arguments have already been pointed out. There is nothing in Austrianism that rules out the use of statistics, especially when identifying whether the conditions necessary for the results a specific theory describes obtain That isn't "positivism" though, it is merely applying the theory to interpret particular facts and is thus hermeneutic in nature.. Now you could re-construct Austrianism on positivist principles, saying the assumptions are merely as good as their predictive power &c., but it is beyond me why one would wish to do so, and Mises and others have argued against the coherence of this notion at length. If one suspends the problems Mises identifies though it's possible. Austrianism is already "empirical" in the classical sense of the word, i.e. the Aristotelian one.
To darkness I condemn you...
The Austrian school is inseperable from its epistemological viewpoint. Positivism itself is a self defeating theory in two different ways:
1. It states that all knowledge must be somehow historically or empirically derived. Unfortunately, one cannot derive the theory/idea of positivism from any kind of empirical research, making positivism an invalid proposition in and of itself. In other words, if positivism is correct, then it cannot be correct, since it is not derived from empirical research.
2. Positivism claims that scientists of all kinds (including social scientists), should use past experience to form a theory for future experience. It essentially reverts back to a kind of bastard apriorism.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
Krazy,
While I appreciate your answer, I did not ask for criticisms of positivism. What I asked is: given positivist assumptions , how much of Austrian economics is tenable - or - why are the economic tenets of the Austrian school (e.g. inflation causes the devaluation of money) inseparable from its epistemological foundations? For instance, can someone consistently claim to be an empiricist and share a great many economic views with Austrian economists? I can tell you what a theory implies and excludes (and why) even if I believe that theory is incorrect.
That being said:
It states that all knowledge must be somehow historically or empirically derived. Unfortunately, one cannot derive the theory/idea of positivism from any kind of empirical research, making positivism an invalid proposition in and of itself. In other words, if positivism is correct, then it cannot be correct, since it is not derived from empirical research.
There is a lot more variety in positivism than you seem to realize. First of all, not all positivists are verficationists (in fact, none are, at this point) and not all verficationists thought it to be a self-contained philosophical theory capable of self-verfication; it was thought to be merely a theory of science. For a more modern verfsion of positivism, see constructive-empiricism, and I would recommend van Fraassen's Scinetific Image as an excellent introduction which is not a bore to read.
AFAIK Popperian scientific realism does not require theories to be based on empirical data, just that they should be falsifiable by empirical data. Popper recommended that one should make daring hypotheses then verify them rigorously.
Popper was not a positivist, but I suppose empiricism in general can be discussed.
Gene L.:While I appreciate your answer, I did not ask for criticisms of positivism. What I asked is: given positivist assumptions , how much of Austrian economics is tenable - or - why are the economic tenets of the Austrian school (e.g. inflation causes the devaluation of money) inseparable from its epistemological foundations? For instance, can someone consistently claim to be an empiricist and share a great many economic views with Austrian economists? I can tell you what a theory implies and excludes (and why) even if I believe that theory is incorrect.
I gave you the answer in my first sentence. Apriorism and the Austrian school cannot be separated; the Austrian school rests solely on a priori epistemology. If you ever have read Menger or Mises, you would understand this.
That said, there is no doubt that certain economists have come to similar theories using differing methodologies. For example, monetarists and new classical economists have come to some similar conclusions. The major fault in both macroeconomic schools is that they fail to see the short-term non-neutrality of money as the cause of the boom-bust cycle, which is an example of the failure of their epistemological viewpoint.
All forms of empiricism, including logical positivism, by definition are schools of thought which view knowledge as something obtained a posteriori. That said, any theory acknowledging the superiority of a posteriori knowledge is self-contradictory, since that theory itself is a priori.
I gave you the answer in my first sentence.
Pardon me. I thought it obvious that I was looking for an explanation and a discussion. "No it isn't" and "go read" hardly qualifies as such (unless you're a follower of Ayn Rand). I am aware of the general opinion; I am asking for reasons.
The major fault in both macroeconomic schools is that they fail to see the short-term non-neutrality of money as the cause of the boom-bust cycle, which is an example of the failure of their epistemological viewpoint.
Do you believe the ACT is emprically unverfifiable? A recent article here, for instance, seems to argue against Greenspan soley on the basis of statistical data. Now I'm sure you'll say that the general principles from which Murphey argues are based on those derived from the basics axioms of Austrian economics, but that does not mean they could not also be defended on empirical grounds.
All forms of empiricism, including logical positivism, by definition are schools of thought which view knowledge as something obtained a posteriori.
Gene L.: Popper was not a positivist, but I suppose empiricism in general can be discussed.
Right; my confusion with the Austrian view stems from the fact that it seems reject any kind of empiricism, including Popperian realism (which includes formal theorizing prior to empirical studies).
I must admit I'm rather unfamiliar with positivism. I'm currently taking a poli sci epistemology class (at the undergrad level) and have been having a hell of a time telling positivism from empiricism (broadly defined). I suspect positivism may be more frequent in economics than in the kind of political sociology texts we've been analyzing, at any rate.
Krazy Kaju,
Your profile says you're a "17 year old anarcho capitalist." I can't help to ask but does that mean you are 17 years of age or that you're older than that but have been an anarcho capitalist for only 17 years?
If you want to ask him that, PM him. It's irrelevant to this topic.
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