Praxeology in a formal system...

Reply

britainland Posted: Sun, Sep 28 2008 10:54 AM

rated by 0 users

This has been brought up before, but that topic died, and I think bumping it would result in limited interest. My basic proposition is the same: that praxeology could potentially be formalised in some way. I'm not an expert logician, but I can see that the action axiom could be stated in first-order logic as something like:

Ax(Human(x) => Act(x))

That is, for all x, if x is human, then x acts. I think the same could be done with some other axioms (in the sense of a formal system, the scarcity of time, for example, would be an axiom), and the result would be a formal system from which all Austrian theories could be derived.

Some might question the reason for doing this; well, I have two main reasons. First of all, I just think that it would be a fun and interesting project. Secondly, though, I think it could give Austrian economics broader appeal. While you or I, having read Austrian works, can see the logic and power of praxeology, I can understand the scepticism and ignorance of both "mainstream" economists and the general populace. However, I think that putting praxeology in this formal system would be so unambiguous, and so clear, as to make denial of its conclusions impossible. It would be fantastic if, when presented with a challenge, one could link to a Metamath-like proof of Austrian conclusions, such that every logical argument could be traced from axioms to conclusions.

Rothbard's arguments against such formalisation are correct (he even cites Keynes approvingly!), in the sense that formalising praxeology does violate Occam's Razor, and it is pretty much just mental masturbation. I can clearly see the logical precision of praxeology, and if every economist read Man, Economy, and State, I expect a large number would become Austrians. However, they haven't, so presenting the argument in a way that will appeal to them, and in a way so clear as to be undeniable, becomes an important (though, I stress, not the only outlet) way to spread Austrian ideas. At worst, such an exercise will just be a waste of time, because formalisation, if done correctly, should merely be restating praxeology in a different language. It won't be corrupted.

So, I suppose I'm looking for thoughts on this.