Economics

mhamlin:

That is the definition of science.  We must not conflate the colloquial perception of science (that is, the natural sciences and their associated methodologies) with the definition of the term.  

What is your definition of 'science'?  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

"3. any of the branches of natural or physical science."

Philosophies that are able to apply the scientific method.  Otherwise, it is just a philosophy.

Natural science was once called Natural Philosophy, Spidey. Get over it, science as a word isn't exclusively meant to be for only natural sciences. Otherwise, economics, psychology, and etc wouldn't be a science. I happen to be a non-natural science, btw, Computer Science. We don't use the scientific method at all.

ladyattis:

Natural science was once called Natural Philosophy, Spidey. Get over it, science as a word isn't exclusively meant to be for only natural sciences. Otherwise, economics, psychology, and etc wouldn't be a science. I happen to be a non-natural science, btw, Computer Science. We don't use the scientific method at all.

Again, the word "science" seems pretty pointless.  It seems more like something colleges use to make a program seem more viable.

Why don't we call the automotive program, "automotive science"!  Or how about call the legal program, "science law"!

 

That's why there's a distinction between the sciences. *rolls eyes* That's why people make the point of talking about natural sciences vs social sciences, or computational sciences vs other kinds of sciences. I'm not trying to be mean, but it's not a hard concept to grasp. It's like having different kinds of dogs, but not all dogs were bred with the same purpose in mind.

GilesStratton:

I think Rothbard was an excellent historian and a competant economist.

You breadth of knowledge is admittedly greater than mine, so I defer to you: of Rothbard's generation is there an economist you prefer to him, since he is described here as merely competent. Do you prefer Kirzner for example?

 

GilesStratton:

His political philosophy on the other hand left a lot to be desired. As for Hoppe, as many here may know, I'm a huge fan of his.

Honestly, I think those who split hairs between Hoppe and Rothbard on political philosophy are doing themselves a disservice. No offense, but where Hoppe has contributed significantly  to political theory he is merely extending Rothbard.  But perhaps I am overstating their similarities. Perhaps, a la Mises/Hayek a dehomogenization is in order.  I agree with Hoppe in favoring monarchy over democracy, if not entirely on the whole covenants. Although, I can't think of an important practical issue where they disagree. Whether or not restrictive covenants would proliferate depends entirely on market demand and is therefore not entirely predictable. Hoppe is more fundementally "conservative" than Rothbard in some of his reasoning, sure. But in the end I think the conclusion of an anarchic free society rooted in private property renders most disagreements effectively moot. I'm not fundementally sure where Rothbard would seem inadequate to you in pure political philosophy. Now I can see the differences clearly between Rothbard and Hoppe in ethical methodology and sociology and I can see why you'd favor Hoppe here. 

GilesStratton:

As for the current generations of Austrians I think Joe Salerno is the most promising.

 Over Garrison? I'm not really one to judge, but I'm a little surpised. I would've guessed you'd say Garrison.

GilesStratton:

I've never said otherwise, my point was that economic science is economic science and should not be confused with ones political beliefs.

I'm not sure specifically who your accusations are weighed against, true. Libertarianism =/= Austrianism. However, if I've read your previous posts correctly you seem to be implying as of late that Austrian Economics must be supported by economic debate with the mainstream and libertarianism must be supported by more Machiavellian political reason and never twain shall the two meet. Am I wrong? Say it ain't so, Giles.

If I am not mischaracterizing your view, and I sincerely hope I am not I believe such reasoning to be mistaken. Libertarianism is best in the long-run supported on the ideological front of argument and persuasion. Ideological paradigm shift is key. I don't see how this is incompatible with promoting Austrian Economics and I think Rothbard, Block et al. have done this quite well. A la Stranger, the best short-run odds is with something like microsecession. Why can't someone be an academic Austrian economist and invest in microsecessionist projects like anyone else? If I understand your view correctly, I am truly perplexed sir. 

Spideynw:

First of all, economics is not a science.

This is the most ignorant comment I have seen from someone who has more then 500 posts on this forum. ####### I would argue that it is the Austrian method of economics that is scientific and the definition of praxeology by Mises of "The science of human action" is completely valid. I think the criticisms of economics of not being scientific may be more appropriate to the mainstream mathematical economists who reject praxeolgy and invent equations that cannot be tested in any scientific manner. ######## The basic a priori truth of "man acts to improve the well being of his current state" (to seek gain or profit) can be proven by any experiments according to the scientific method. Let me put it another way, there has not been a single scientific experiment in any of the relevant fields to human action (psychology, evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, etc...) that is able to refute it. No such "scientist" would ever reject such a basic truth. The logical deductive process is a process that no scientific theory can exist without. It is completely valid to take such a prior propositions and logically deduce more complex propositions. One can argue one of 2 things to refute a proposition: ####### 1. A fundamental a priori proposition is false, which can be argued on the basis of scientific experiments 2.The deductive derivation process is incorrect, in a similar fashion that a mathematical derivation can be incorrect.

DD5:

I would argue that it is the Austrian method of economics that is scientific

But it does not use the scientific method.  As such, it is a philosophy, not a science.

DD5:

and the definition of praxeology by Mises of "The science of human action" is completely valid.

Depending, I guess, on how you define "valid".

DD5:

I think the criticisms of economics of not being scientific may be more appropriate to the mainstream mathematical economists who reject praxeolgy and invent equations that cannot be tested in any scientific manner.

I agree.  Math is not a science.

DD5:

The basic a priori truth of "man acts to improve the well being of his current state" (to seek gain or profit) can be proven by any experiments according to the scientific method.

No it cannot.  Yes it is logical, but it cannot be proven using the scientific method.

DD5:

Let me put it another way, there has not been a single scientific experiment in any of the relevant fields to human action (psychology, evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, etc...) that is able to refute it.

That would be because one cannot prove a negative.

DD5:

No such "scientist" would ever reject such a basic truth.

So?

Maybe this will help you understand my position:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy

"1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct."

I would guess the only people who think that science is anything besides a subject that uses the scientific method are academia.  Because otherwise, you can apply the word "science" to any subject.

Nerditarian:

You breadth of knowledge is admittedly greater than mine, so I defer to you: of Rothbard's generation is there an economist you prefer to him, since he is described here as merely competent. Do you prefer Kirzner for example?

I don't really know what you mean by prefer, I'm not too well read on Kirzner (his Driving Force of the Market is right here in front of me though and it's the next book I plan on reading, so I'll get back to you then). From what I do know, however, he's done work original work than Rothbard, and is a great economist. For example, he's tackled a lot of the difficult issues regarding capital and has done huge amounts of work with regards to entrepreneurship and the nature of competition.

However, I'd probably be more in line with Rothbard's development of Misesian thought than I would with Kirzner's. As I said, I'll get back to you once I've read some of his work so I can make a more informed judgement.

Nerditarian:

Honestly, I think those who split hairs between Hoppe and Rothbard on political philosophy are doing themselves a disservice. No offense, but where Hoppe has contributed significantly  to political theory he is merely extending Rothbard.  But perhaps I am overstating their similarities. Perhaps, a la Mises/Hayek a dehomogenization is in order.  I agree with Hoppe in favoring monarchy over democracy, if not entirely on the whole covenants. Although, I can't think of an important practical issue where they disagree. Whether or not restrictive covenants would proliferate depends entirely on market demand and is therefore not entirely predictable. Hoppe is more fundementally "conservative" than Rothbard in some of his reasoning, sure. But in the end I think the conclusion of an anarchic free society rooted in private property renders most disagreements effectively moot. I'm not fundementally sure where Rothbard would seem inadequate to you in pure political philosophy. Now I can see the differences clearly between Rothbard and Hoppe in ethical methodology and sociology and I can see why you'd favor Hoppe here. 

I think your missing my point, what I actually meant was Rothbard's ethical theory, and the criticisms I'd level against Rothbard would also apply to Hoppe. I'm not sure if something could be salvaged from Hoppe's argumentation ethics, but what I do think is that both of their ethical theories are overly simplistic. Rothbard's especially could lead to some really absurd consequences. As for Hoppe's social theory, I think it is by far his best work, his work on monarchy and democracy, whilst not ground breaking (Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Rothbard both elaborated similar, albeit less rigorous, theories) is very important. His extension of praxeology into sociology and the grounds he provided for conservatism are both very good though.

Nerditarian:

Over Garrison? I'm not really one to judge, but I'm a little surpised. I would've guessed you'd say Garrison.

No, Salerno is a superb economist and has done great work on Mises' calculation debate. I'm very much awaiting his price theory textbook. Whilst I've probably learned more from Garrison than I have from any other Austrian, not a lot of his has concerned Austrian economics. Granted, his books contains wonderful expositions and discussions of Keynesian, monetarist and new classical thought, but not a lot of new insights regarding Austrians economics (the exception being his work on expectations and risk, which is really good). That said, I think Garrison's Time and Money could well be the most important book in Austrian economics in the past 50 years, and should provide the grounds for more thorough explorations into Austrian macroeconomics. Keep in mind I say this whilst fully understanding that his work is very flawed, and perhaps will need thorough revisions.

Nerditarian:

I'm not sure specifically who your accusations are weighed against, true. Libertarianism =/= Austrianism. However, if I've read your previous posts correctly you seem to be implying as of late that Austrian Economics must be supported by economic debate with the mainstream and libertarianism must be supported by more Machiavellian political reason and never twain shall the two meet. Am I wrong? Say it ain't so, Giles.

That's pretty much it. My point is that advancing economic science is a seperate task from that of attaining liberty. For example, I don't think it matters at all whether or not the public understands the complexities or capital or expectations in order for them to obtain libertopia.

 

Spideynw:

No.  Otherwise you are just using a loose definition of science, something more akin to economics is knowledge or philosophy.  Well so is everything.

No, you're off on the positivist nonsense. There are a priori sciences.

In a way I agree with Spidey. I do think that a science necessitates a controlled environment in which the scientific method must be applied. Praxeology itself is an a priori discipline that does not rely on experience or empricism so really I think it skirts the issue of being a science to a degree. I believe Roderick Long categorizes Austrianism as positivism, historicism, and praxeology. I think you would have a difficult time trying to ascert that positivism is a 'science'

 

On a much broader note concerning this topic, I think what we have here is supposed 'value free' theorists enraged that not everyone else looks at economics the same. Truly the more I read and listen to Roderick Long's philosophical lectures on the premises of economic theory, the more I discover the weakness of such 'value-free' positions. Perhaps if they were to read the same lectures they can see the flaws in their position. I eagerly await such a day.

But I think what must be pointed out that empiricism isn't exactly positivism. As one can be both an empiricist and a rationalist (in fact many of the great rationalists of the 18th century were unbashed empiricists). So, in all reality, an a priori inquiry can state much about an empirical study. In fact, Mises in Human Action points this out in the nature of logic itself, especially when he considered from his own analysis something akin to Evolutionary Psychology, in which he supposed natural selection having a hand in the rise of human beings that could form what would be the backbone of praxeology and economics. This argument isn't at all anti-scientific. In fact, many scientists have suggested the same thing for many of the cognitive features of the human (and even non-human) animal. The fact that Mises could conceive this notion in his day, decades before anyone would ever take a serious study at such a thought is something that shows to me the illuminating nature of a priori reasoning (anaylsis).

Spideynw:

But it does not use the scientific method. As such, it is a philosophy, not a science.

Mathematics is not a science either, it uses self-evident truths like 1+1=2. Therefore, according to you Mathematics is a philosophy. Since all scientific method experiments utilize some math, even if it's for simple statistics, then we can conclude that the physical scienses or any controlled experiment is also a philoshphy.

Wikipdia: "Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1]" ######## Sounds like praxeology meets the definition.

Yeah I think economics is a science.  I think ethics is a science too.  As to controlled experiment that may be necessary for more rigorous sciences that need to pin-point something as small as a quark or even larger such as the atom itself.  In other words science is what can be repeated, as DD5 shows here.  This is why human action is a science, but what action?  That's the open-ended part.  My life can be an experiment and I can test what leads to certain results based on a hypothesis.  This can lead to good habits or bad habits, but the good habits would be more repeatable in living.  Without getting too much into this a philosophy is a thought-experiment but a science is applied to life and sometimes earth is lab.  Economists test their theories by showing if A happens in society then B will happen.  The ABCT does this, for one.  Austrian economists are showing more of what is, while socialist economists such as Keynesians are trying to make a what is (the latter are engineering the free market to meet their models whereas the Austrians are doing the reverse and being more descriptive instead of centrally trying to engineer what they think an economy should look like).

As for Giles, instead of writing a post complaining about not enough economic interaction for you on this forum, I suggest you write an economic post and put into practice what you preach.  Of course, my opinion.  I for one have been learning little by little about economics and enjoy the posts in this forum that discuss economics.  It helps tune my mind to a subject that for most of my life I found to be a boring and useless topic.  But my opinion of it has changed, but now I have a lot of work to do to figure it out.  So reading the articles in the Mises Daily, some blogs, and some essays have helped me learn the very basics of economics.  Sometimes I have to repeatedly read certain articles in economics to gain a better intellectual footing, but it's coming along very slowly.  So maybe if Giles wrote more economic posts I could learn more about economics.  But I'm trying and I openly admit I'm mentally probably in 6 grade or so when it comes to economics and all the various books that covers it.  I started to read Man, State, and the Economy once and then found out maybe I ought to start with something more basic like "Economics in One Lesson".  So I depend on Austrian economics to hold ground while it takes me some time to join them.  I'm still in training camp.

wilderness:

I started to read Man, State, and the Economy once and then found out maybe I ought to start with something more basic like "Economics in One Lesson".  So I depend on Austrian economics to hold ground while it takes me some time to join them.  I'm still in training camp.

After you're done with Hazlitt's book, a good spot to continue progressing along the Austrian School learning curve is Menger's 'Principles of Economics'.

Spideynw:

But it does not use the scientific method.

Stop thinking in terms of a posteriori. The positivists have you; follow us down the rabbit hole and see how far it goes.

 

I think this confusion over a posteriori and a priori in science can best be cured by a reading of Human Action Spidey. I have to admit even though I was free market oriented before reading Human Action, I was still a positivist. Reading it has changed me, and I'm still reading it! Also remember the proposition that all scientific truths are hypothetical and require testing for falsification is itself an untestable hypothesis; killing this vision of science right at its birthplace!

Epistemological Problems of Economics by Ludwig Von Mises

"The science of human action that strives for universally valid knowledge is the theoretical system whose hitherto best elaborated branch is economics. In all of its branches this science is a priori, not empirical. Like logic and mathematics, it is not derived from experience; it is prior to experience. It is, as it were, the logic of action and deed."

Economic Science and the Austrian Method by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Praxeology and Economic Science:

Sec I : "It is well-known that Austrians disagree strongly with other schools of economic thought..."
Sec II : "Non-praxeological schools of thought mistakenly believe that relationships between certain events are well-established empirical laws..."

On Praxeology and the Praxeological Foundation of Epistemology

Sec I : "As have most great and innovative economists, Ludwig von Mises intensively and repeatedly analyzed the problem of the logical status of economic propositions..."
Sec II : "Let me turn to Mises's solution..."
Sec III : "I shall now turn to my second goal: the explanation of why and how praxeology also provides the foundation for epistemology..."
Sec IV : "In so establishing the place of praxeology proper, I have come full circle in outlining the system of rationalist philosophy as ultimately grounded in the action axiom..."

Counter Revolution of Science by F.A. Hayek

The problem that Hayek deals with reaches to the core of how economists think about their discipline. There was once such a thing as the human sciences of which economics was part. The goal was to discover and elucidate the exact laws that govern the interaction of people with the material world. It had its own methods and own recommendations.

Then something changed. Science became entirely positivistic in its orientation. Economics was changed from a human science into a poor cousin of the natural sciences that applied positivist methods, and to no great end, for human beings do not move about like molecules but rather engage in choices and unpredictable actions.

What Hayek does in this treatise is link the change in methodology to a change in politics. The economy and people began to be regarded as a collective entity to be examined as if whole societies should be studied as we study planets or other non-volitional beings. It then began to make mistakes, treating facts as theories and theories as contingent. And thus is the state invited in to treat society as a laboratory.

This re-definition of what constitutes science thus had a terrible and even deadly result for human well being and liberty. Science had turned from being a friend of freedom into being employed as its enemy.

The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science by Ludwig Von Mises

There are two senses in which this book is indeed ultimate: it deals with the very core of economics as a science, and it is the last book that he wrote.

As his career was coming to a close, Mises saw that that fiercest battles over economic questions come down to issues of epistemology: how do we determine what is and what is not true in economics? How do we even know that economics is a valid science? What are the methods we should use in studying economics? What constitutes a true proposition and how do we know?

These questions matter because, as Mises says, the very future of freedom and civilization itself depend on economic science, the development and application of which was "the most spectacular event of modern history."

DD5:

Spideynw:

But it does not use the scientific method. As such, it is a philosophy, not a science.

Mathematics is not a science either, it uses self-evident truths like 1+1=2. Therefore, according to you Mathematics is a philosophy. Since all scientific method experiments utilize some math, even if it's for simple statistics, then we can conclude that the physical scienses or any controlled experiment is also a philoshphy.

I have already stated that math is not a science either.  1+1 does not always =2.  I really did not want to go there, but if you must.  If you have 1 pile of dirt and add it to another pile of dirt, you do not have 2 piles of dirt, you have 1 larger pile of dirt.  So yes, mathematics is a philosophy.

Only academians think math or economics are sciences.  Just because one uses logic does not make it a science.

DD5:

Wikipdia: "Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1]" ######## Sounds like praxeology meets the definition.

It does not to me.  Let me ask you this, if we reduce government spending by 1%, how much will the economy rise in terms of productivity?