Philosophy and Methodology

Understanding economics is the key to preserving civilization. This is because civilization itself is a consequence of choices.

Austrian economists insist one cannot use the methodology of the physical sciences to explain economic phenomena. In this week’s Friday Philosophy, Dr. David Gordon examines Peter Winch, who criticized using methodology of the physical sciences to explain social sciences.

The middle of the road reveals itself not as balance, but as a gentle slope toward the rationalized management of social life.

Today, the term "Austrian economics" is used to designate two very different paradigms.

One of the Austrian arguments against using mathematics to model economic phenomena is that there are no constants in economics, as things always are changing.

Ironically, an acatallactic pseudo-theory of money that emerged from a school of thought that rejected theory in favor of an empirico-realistic, historical theory of money now finds it intellectually acceptable, not only to reject catallactic economic theory, but also empirical history.

Austrian economists have long criticized using mathematics to undergird economic analysis. It is time to apply that same criticism to using math to undergird analysis of financial markets.

Historical data is not enough for economists to make sense of it. Instead, that data must be viewed through a theoretical framework that explains what has happened.

Menger said alternative monetary theories were “unhistorical,” but one could argue that Menger’s theory also lacks historical evidence necessary to verify his theory. Did Menger display a double standard or a nuanced view as to what we should expect from different monetary theories?

Economists consider probability to be central to economic analysis, but, as Ludwig von Mises wrote, economic action involves unique and purposeful events, not random ones.