Human Action

Economics attempts, a priori, to discover the wants and desires of man, his preferences and motivations.  Actions are then logically deduced from these wants and desires.  The process is not a posteriori, where wants and desires are logically deduced from actions.  In this sense, Economics fails the first empirical requirement of natural science: It is not a posteriori.  Also, it fails the second empirical requirement of natural science:  It cannot be repeated (meaning, the wants and desires of man cannot be standardized - they are as varied as are people and the circumstances and times in which they find themselves.)  Therefore, it must be a social science (and better than any other social science!)

I agree with what you are saying, but Human Action doesn't make the case that Economics can be repeated. So we will agree on the same information as far as that is concerned. I disagree that the attempt is to discover wants and desires based on preferences and motivations. In many cases motivations are obvious, as are preferences; however, in a lot of cases preferences and motivations are unknown. These are very subjective things we are talking about... I do believe it is not within the realm of economics to attempt at guessing what motivates man in his actions. However, I do believe actions reflect preferences. That is what the whole argument of opportunity cost shows. We cannot do everything we want to, so we must choose. All of this is true, but Human Action shows that man acts to improve the lot of his life. This axiom is proven and repeated on a daily basis. It is not within our nature to say "how hard can I make my life today?" Know what I mean? The other argument is that anything mankind does socially is wholly within our Nature to do so.

If all wants, desires, preferences and motivations are elusive, it would be impossible to presuppose any axiom in economics.  To pressupose an axiom, it is not necessary to know every want, desire, preference or motivation held by each individual person but those which are held in common.  These are "ends" that are sought by multitudinous "means," the variety of which is as numerous as the people on earth. 

I don't think I said that Human Action makes the case that Economics can be repeated, rather that it cannot and, therefore, fails the test of empiricism in the natural sciences.

i'm a lil confused. i never thought economics was about knowing individuals' ends, either by themselves or as a large group. i thought it was simply about the most efficient means to achieve those ends, taking all individuals into consideration and long-term as well as short-term consequences. For example, if my ends is to kick around a soccer ball, I first need the ball; and the most efficient means to get one is through mutual exchange with those who specialize in making one. Now, given certain circumstances I could steal one more easily; but if everyone tried to steal to achieve their ends, we would find that security is increased making this a more difficult option today, the theft would only benefit a small group of people rather than everyone, or no one would have an incentive to produce leaving future ends more difficult to achieve. A free market is the most efficient means to achieve all ends when taking into consideration all individuals and short-term vs. long-term consequences, independent of the given ends. Of course, this only goes so far - your ends may be a society where there is no free market. but if everyone wanted that, it could be most easily achieved in a free market - everyone would voluntarily enter into a contract with everyone else and cede their property over to this collective entity.

Lyle: "Economics attempts, a priori, to discover the wants and desires of man, his preferences and motivations."

Actually, this is incorrect. Thymology (a branch of history) is the science of discovering ends. Praxeology, including economics, takes ends as given.

Desires, preferences, and motivations can only be known by taking into consideration action. But that is not always enough. Sometimes we are barred from doing the things we really do prefer doing. If Economics cannot be repeated, how can we possibly have any such thing as "economic law"? How could it possibly be proper to say that when currency increases faster than goods and services, you have higher prices? Or to say that wages held above the market rate will cause unemployment? The specifics of any economy cannot be repeated, but the foundational laws of supply and demand are always repeated; that is an attribute to the nature of man. Human Action brilliantly points out man's natural position in this world. No matter how big the government, its only tool is force; it is not omniscient, omnipotent... etc. we live in a limited world and have limited abilities, and so we must choose. This is the nature of man, and it is constantly repeated.

Danny, So what you are saying is that Human Action is deduced a priori and not from its consequences (which would make it a posteriori) and that desires, wants, and motivations ("ends") are not considered except as given. Is this correct?

Because the nature of action has specific consequences. For instance, if I take a nap right now, I can't also ride a bike right now. There's nothing that inherently says preferences MUST stay the same. So increased money printing does not necessarily mean increased prices. People COULD prefer to spend less money and prices would stay the same or drop. But if one attempts to achieve the same ends (same purchase of goods) with an increased money supply, austrian economics describes the logical process of how prices would be bid up.

even with that argument, one could argue that it is a law of nature that man has preferences, period, and that human action reflects those preferences. Again, Economics, as it relates to Human Action, proves that it is part of Nature itself that man-kind have preferences, rather than valuing everything exactly the same. This makes a case for natural science, rather than social, even if your argument is accepted (and by the way, it is logically sound from my point of view, it just doesn't refute the natural-science argument to me)