GilesStratton: Well there's a number of Austrian PhD programmes, even more Austrians in undergraduate degrees, so I'd say not too badly. People like Herbener and Block have been converted. As I said, it's an uphill battle, but in the next 50 years, the grounds are set for Austrianism to become more popular, with the work on the Mises institute and other Austrians.
Well there's a number of Austrian PhD programmes, even more Austrians in undergraduate degrees, so I'd say not too badly. People like Herbener and Block have been converted. As I said, it's an uphill battle, but in the next 50 years, the grounds are set for Austrianism to become more popular, with the work on the Mises institute and other Austrians.
I can count the number of Austrian PhD programs on my fingers. The numbers of new Austrian graduates are insignificant next to how many are indoctrinated with "mainstream" economic ideas. On a purely numerical basis, its not even a competition. No doubt that the Mises Institute is doing remarkable things, but you shouldn't put all your hope in one institution. We need to have a wider, decentralized effort attacking the problem from every conceivable angle, and so we need alternative strategies to accomplish this for academia.
GilesStratton: Economists don't even listen to philosophers, the biggest piece in methodology in the last century was Friedman's essay (which I read yesterday, it's pretty poor if you ask me) and that was written by an economists (as well as the other big piece by Blaug, also an economist). Positivism has been out of favour with philosophers for some time now, economists still adhere to it because they're just that, economists, not philosophers. As Herbener says, before he became an Austrian he had no idea about epistemological issues, he was just doing what all the other economists did. The only Austrian who came to Austrianism through philosophy was Hoppe.
Economists don't even listen to philosophers, the biggest piece in methodology in the last century was Friedman's essay (which I read yesterday, it's pretty poor if you ask me) and that was written by an economists (as well as the other big piece by Blaug, also an economist). Positivism has been out of favour with philosophers for some time now, economists still adhere to it because they're just that, economists, not philosophers. As Herbener says, before he became an Austrian he had no idea about epistemological issues, he was just doing what all the other economists did. The only Austrian who came to Austrianism through philosophy was Hoppe.
I think you are underestimating the role that philosophy has played in shaping the history of science. All modern sciences are essentially a sub-branch/extension of philosophy. Science literally cannot proceed without philosophers first delineating the methodology that scientists then utilize. (Think of people like A.J. Ayer and logical positivism.) Sure, many philosophers today don't think kindly upon positivism, but economists still use it because philosophers haven't provided them with an alternative methodology. If philosophers started advocating praxeology in large numbers, it would give timid economists the confidence they need to adopt something that was previously seen as "radical" epistemologically.
GilesStratton: If you want to advance Austrianism to philosophers, that's good, and important. The same applies for political science and sociology, but don't confuse doing that with advancing Austrian economics. Moreover, don't confuse it with "advancing liberty".
If you want to advance Austrianism to philosophers, that's good, and important. The same applies for political science and sociology, but don't confuse doing that with advancing Austrian economics. Moreover, don't confuse it with "advancing liberty".
My primary goal isn't to promote Austrianism to philosophers. I want economists to be economists, ie. praxeologists. But the only way to do that is to give praxeology a sense of legitimacy in the academic world, and the easiest way to do that is to convince the philosophers. I want to advance praxeology; Austrian economics and individual liberty will necessarily follow from there.
phrizek: I think you are underestimating the role that philosophy has played in shaping the history of science. All modern sciences are essentially a sub-branch/extension of philosophy. Science literally cannot proceed without philosophers first delineating the methodology that scientists then utilize. (Think of people like A.J. Ayer and logical positivism.) Sure, many philosophers today don't think kindly upon positivism, but economists still use it because philosophers haven't provided them with an alternative methodology. If philosophers started advocating praxeology in large numbers, it would give timid economists the confidence they need to adopt something that was previously seen as "radical" epistemologically.
Exactly. I'm not bringing this up due to Giles that's a side issue.
But I'm commenting on this cause a lot of people do not realize the major role philosophy plays in science. Philosophers sit in with scientists often to help them figure out theories due to the logic that philosophers offer to help the scientists weed through their conceptual needs. Stephen Jay Gould who collaborated with Niles Eldridges fossil finds to come up with Punctuated Equilibrium wrote in his huge book, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" how numerous philosophers helped him and others out while doing their science. And he discusses evolutionary theory all the way back into the late 1700's and early 1800's when science was still called natural philosophy. They directly know the philosophers they are dealing with and sit and talk with them. It's not that abstract. It's direct communication. Excellent points phrizek.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
phrizek: Science literally cannot proceed without philosophers first delineating the methodology that scientists then utilize.
It doesn't follow that most economists care about what philosophers have to say about methodology, most simply follow what their peers are saying or do what yields the best result. As I said, positivism has been out of favour for a long time with philosophers, economists still dogmatically adhere to it, because their peers do and because they don't see any other way of getting better results.
phrizek:My primary goal isn't to promote Austrianism to philosophers. I want economists to be economists, ie. praxeologists. But the only way to do that is to give praxeology a sense of legitimacy in the academic world, and the easiest way to do that is to convince the philosophers. I want to advance praxeology; Austrian economics and individual liberty will necessarily follow from there.
No, they won't. You have to market it to economists too, otherwise it simply won't be accepted by the economic community. Unless you can show that it can provide results, economists won't stick to it, the attractiveness of elegant mathematical models will still continue to dominate unless it can be shown that verbal logic can provide superior results.
phrizek:I can count the number of Austrian PhD programs on my fingers. The numbers of new Austrian graduates are insignificant next to how many are indoctrinated with "mainstream" economic ideas.
And yet, the numbers are increasing continuously, Austrian PhD programmes are necessary if you want to be able to train economists who have the ability to challenge the mainstream.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: phrizek: Science literally cannot proceed without philosophers first delineating the methodology that scientists then utilize. It doesn't follow that most economists care about what philosophers have to say about methodology, most simply follow what their peers are saying or do what yields the best result. As I said, positivism has been out of favour for a long time with philosophers, economists still dogmatically adhere to it, because their peers do and because they don't see any other way of getting better results. phrizek:My primary goal isn't to promote Austrianism to philosophers. I want economists to be economists, ie. praxeologists. But the only way to do that is to give praxeology a sense of legitimacy in the academic world, and the easiest way to do that is to convince the philosophers. I want to advance praxeology; Austrian economics and individual liberty will necessarily follow from there. No, they won't. You have to market it to economists too, otherwise it simply won't be accepted by the economic community. Unless you can show that it can provide results, economists won't stick to it, the attractiveness of elegant mathematical models will still continue to dominate unless it can be shown that verbal logic can provide superior results. phrizek:I can count the number of Austrian PhD programs on my fingers. The numbers of new Austrian graduates are insignificant next to how many are indoctrinated with "mainstream" economic ideas. And yet, the numbers are increasing continuously, Austrian PhD programmes are necessary if you want to be able to train economists who have the ability to challenge the mainstream.
My words are clearly lost on you, Giles.
i find it distressing where this topic has gone, in that i consider it indicative of a trend. austrian economics is very important, but it is still only a subset of praxeology. in the original sense of the word, economics deals with all social structure. now, little progress has been made towards reifying this intention (primarily because little effort has been afforded). more recently, we have mr nash's contribution, which have helped to stimulate minimal understnding of the true goal of economics, but seems to be lacking in true efficacy. do me a favor, raise your hand if you familiar / versed in praxeology. why must everyone focus on the ancien regime of econmics when its full potential is closer than ever? how many of you limit economics to the exchange of goods and services? in conjunction with non-capitol economcis and crusoe economics, the whole field can move towards yielding the "pure logic of choice" - the praxeological ideal...
jwilsn1020:why must everyone focus on the ancien regime of econmics when its full potential is closer than ever? how many of you limit economics to the exchange of goods and services? in conjunction with non-capitol economcis and crusoe economics, the whole field can move towards yielding the "pure logic of choice" - the praxeological ideal...
That's what I say. Austrians seem to me like the caveman who invented the wheel and spends all his time trying to perspuade the other cavemen of its utility, while it's within his capacity to invent the internal combustion engine.
If you're interested, Adam Knott has done some work to put praxeology on a more rigorous basis.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
I reject the human action 'axiom'. I reject it because the phrase "humans act" seems redundant. "Action" is within the definition of what constitutes a "human."
The human action 'axiom' is no different from those 'facts' below:
Why does the fact "humans act" deserve a higher priority over the list above?
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: Humans think Humans see Humans move Humans consume energy Humans live on earth Humans have blood Humans enjoy food
What a wonderful list of actions. Oh wait you are supposed to be denouncing the axiom of human action...ummm
RABBLE! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!
153618
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
It doesn't help that Austrians claim all their propositions are the result of deductive logic, yet after half a century no one has actually explicitly spelled out the reasoning involved. If they had, then how would anyone disagree, any more than they could disagree with a mathematical proof? You say it's not mathematics? Yes, I know, but is it deductive or not?
The excuse I've heard is that it would be hard work. Well how you do know this methodology is even valid, then? You must be accepting these propositions based on a plausible argument, and the relevance of certain empirical claims. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that.
Anarchist Cain, you did not refute my first rejection of the human action 'axiom':
AM:I reject the human action 'axiom'. I reject it because the phrase "humans act" seems redundant. "Action" is within the definition of what constitutes a "human."
Do you consider the fact that "humans have hair" as an 'axiom'?
Anarcho-Mercantilist: Anarchist Cain, you did not refute my first rejection of the human action 'axiom': AM:I reject the human action 'axiom'. I reject it because the phrase "humans act" seems redundant. "Action" is within the definition of what constitutes a "human." Do you consider the fact that "humans have hair" as an 'axiom'?
Rejecting that humans act is an action. And no being human does not require having hair, one can be hairless and still human.
By the way,
enjoying food, having blood and having hair are traits that exist in species beyond humanity. I fail to see why you bring these up concerning a argument based against human action.
Anarchist Cain:Rejecting that humans act is an action. And no being human does not require having hair, one can be hairless and still human.
Rejecting that humans can understand language requires one to understand language. Therefore, all humans understand language. Do you consider this as an 'axiom'?
Anarchist Cain: RABBLE! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! 153618
I'm definitely thinking of this when Anarcho- pops up. Rabble! Rabble! Rabble! lol
Anarcho-Mercantilist: I reject the human action 'axiom'. I reject it because the phrase "humans act" seems redundant. "Action" is within the definition of what constitutes a "human." The human action 'axiom' is no different from those 'facts' below: Humans think Humans see Humans move Humans consume energy Humans live on earth Humans have blood Humans enjoy food Humans have hair Why does the fact "humans act" deserve a higher priority over the list above?
I do not think that you reject the "humans act" axiom as false. I instead believe that you reject the "humans act" axiom as useless because it is redundant. However, you must realize that all praxeological laws are redundant. The "humans act" axiom is, however, the most visibly redundant law.
The "humans act" axiom contains all information of the nonnatural sciences (i.e., of praxeology); however, it is the task of the praxeological scientist to explain what it means to "act".
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Rejecting that humans can understand language requires one to understand language. Therefore, all humans understand language. Do you consider this as an 'axiom'?
You have to have conceptual knowledge of what language is in order to reject it otherwise you are arguing from ignorance.
Anarchist Cain: Anarcho-Mercantilist:Rejecting that humans can understand language requires one to understand language. Therefore, all humans understand language. Do you consider this as an 'axiom'? You have to have conceptual knowledge of what language is in order to reject it otherwise you are arguing from ignorance.
So all humans understand language, right?
Anarcho-Mercantilist:So all humans understand language, right?
Language is agent neutral. You can reject language but you then cannot communicate that you rejected it. Also we must establish if 'body language' is a language we are discussing.
Anarchist Cain: Anarcho-Mercantilist:So all humans understand language, right? Language is agent neutral. You can reject language but you then cannot communicate that you rejected it. Also we must establish if 'body language' is a language we are discussing.
Same thing with the law of identity. I can reject the law of identity but I cannot communicate that I reject it. Therefore, you cannot "prove" the law of identity without argumentation. So the law of identity depends on the presense of argumentation.
The performative contradiction argument is derived from the law of identity. Therefore, I also reject the performative contradiction argument but I cannot communicate that I reject it.
I reject the performative contradiction argument, and the human action 'axiom' depends on a performative contradiction argument. Therefore, I reject the human action 'axiom', but I cannot communicate that I reject it.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: I can reject the law of identity but I cannot communicate that I reject it. Therefore, you cannot "prove" the law of identity without argumentation. So the law of identity depends on the presense of argumentation.
No because it does not necessarily follow that in rejection you lose your identity. You still retain your identity even if you wish to deny it which is why the law of identity is an axiom. It is an irrefutable claim in which the attempt to refute it contradicts your demeanor or existence. Actually the law of identity is itself self-fulfilling. You have an identity whither or not I am arguing with you.
By the way you contradicted yourself twice in a single reply. You reject the performative contradiction, then say you cannot communicate such rejection but then go on to say again that you reject it. Bear witness to all the actions you are committing in order to refute the axiomatic nature of action itself.
I see that Anarcho-mercantilist ignored my previous post.
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