Please correct me on any misunderstanding I have of the rationale behind the Action Axiom, but my understanding is that argument goes as follows:
All humans act, where ‘acting’ is to engage in purposeful, conscious behaviour. This statement cannot be denied because in order to dispute it would in itself require purposeful, conscious behaviour. In other words, disproving the statement ‘all people act’ requires acting; hence acting is an undeniable a-priori truth.
However, it seems to me that just because it is impossible for me to disprove my own acting, it does not logically follow that other people’s ability to act has been proven. A proof of my action does not simultaneously count as a proof of other’s actions.
The only certainty available to me is the sensory information that is presented from the environment I inhabit. However flawed, unreliable, or even false, that information may be, it is all I have.
I would say that it is synthetic. The statement effectively says 'there are a group of objects out in the physical world that conform to the concept of ‘human’, and this group, being that they are defined as ‘human’ are capable of acting.
It takes the purely definitional term ‘acting man’, and makes an empirical claim about the actual existence of such creatures. Using the analogy of the term ‘bachelor’, it is like saying ‘all bachelors are unmarried and there exist bachelors out there’. Of course, whether the last half of that statement is true cannot be shown a priori.
Regardless, economic science is meaningless if you do not consider others to be separate and autonomous. I can reject the natural sciences by claiming that I cannot conclude whether nature is illusiory or not as well.
It takes the purely definitional term ‘acting man’, and makes an empirical claim about the actual existence of such creatures. Using the analogy of the term ‘bachelor’, it is like saying ‘all bachelors are unmarried and there exist bachelors out there’. Of course, whether the last half of that statement is true cannot be shown a priori.
I don’t think the axiom itself contains the claim that other homo-sapiens are acting creatures, so the non-sequitor isn’t included in the actual axiom. In the grand sense, you can never know “for sure” that every other human isn’t some automaton with no sentient mind to form goals and preferences. But through introspection, the axiom confirms that you yourself are an acting human. The emprical claims only come in assuming that other people are similar to you. However, both in our daily lives and in the field of economics, assuming humans are acting creatures works. So, relative to economics, the question of “are other humans sentient like me?” is sort of a pie-in-the-sky question like “What if what I see as the color red, everyone else sees as green?” I think Mises does discuss this issue somewhere but I can’t recall off the top of my head.
If I am it’s not intentionally. I had never heard the term until you used it here. I will have to get back to you on that one.
Regardless, economic science is meaningless if you do not consider others to be separate and autonomous. I can reject the natural sciences by claiming that I cannot conclude whether nature is illusiory or not as well.
You could if you wish, yes. But you need not reject anything other than a claim to absolute certainty and a-priori truth. It is a matter of faith whether or not you believe the senses. In practice it is not a particularly large leap of faith I admit.
This is pretty much what I’d say as well and I’m pretty sure Mises never even used the term “action axiom.” Praxeology isn’t so much concerned with whether or not people action - its more along the lines of “So long as humans aim at ends (i.e., act), then such and such conclusions logically follow.” The existence of a human which doesn’t act, like someone in a coma, shouldn’t be taken as evidence against praxeology, nor should it be seen as evidence that the person isn’t really human. All it means is that whatever behavior a non-actor exhibits can’t be treated as economic behavior or any other praxeological action.
I don’t think the axiom itself contains the claim that other homo-sapiens are acting creatures, so the non-sequitor isn’t included in the actual axiom.
That is a fair point, however, the general conclusions of Praxeology are certainly intended to apply to others apart from myself. An economy according to Austrianism is, after all, a collection of individuals all acting with intent in relation to each other: in other words - acting.
The emprical claims only come in assuming that other people are similar to you. However, both in our daily lives and in the field of economics, assuming humans are acting creatures works.
This sounds rather similar to Milton Friedman’s Instrumentalism, which kind of goes against the original intent of Praxeology, which is supposed to provide undeniable truths is it not?
If you consider yourself the only existing human then you still think the axiom is true for all humans…
Lol. That’s very true, but as I say above, an economy is meant to be a collection of acting individuals. If it isn’t, then the tools of Austrian economics seem not to be valid.
The existence of a human which doesn’t act, like someone in a coma, shouldn’t be taken as evidence against praxeology, nor should it be seen as evidence that the person isn’t really human. All it means is that whatever behavior a non-actor exhibits can’t be treated as economic behavior or any other praxeological action.
But this is my point. It’s all very well providing me with a way of proving myself an actor, but without me then assuming others act too, I cannot say that economic behaviour extends beyond myself. If economic behaviour does not extend beyond myself, there can be no economics.
The very idea of an “axiom”, is that a self no further detail need be gone into in order to explain it. I understand your concern, it’s one of the things which I had a hard time initially getting over, but what you’re talking about is an additional justification, not the reason itself. If you wish to honestly question or disbelieve the action axiom then fine, go ahead, but you’re not going to be able to advocate much if you do, and I think it’s obvious that the Austrian conception of human action pretty obviously explains human interactions, insofar as it ever could.