I don’t understand how that’s that objective of agent-based modeling.
That’s because it’s not. There’s nothing in agent-based modeling that requires quantifying preferences, and a model that was consistent with AE would have agents with ordinal preferences not cardinal. At the end of the day, AB modeling is just a method. It’s potential compatibility with Austrian Economics depends on how a particular model is designed.
Sorry, I thought you meant that:
In the conext of ABM.
Still, it’s not about quantifying the unquantifyable, but being able to create some kind lab experiment that would mitigate that type of critcism.
Red herring. Designing AI is designing AI, not modelling intelligence.
“Designing AI is designing AI, not model ling intelligence.”
Upon what are you basing this assertion? Or alternatively - what qualifies you to make such an assertion?
In fact, contradicting the Austrian wannabe-experts here, the latest issue of the Review of Austrian Economics has the article “Examining Social Processes with Agent-Based Models.” I’m sure you’ll find it helpful.
And that wouldn’t necessarily be a problem, except that many of these people represent their underdeveloped knowledge with hubris rather than humility.
Hvala lepo. 
Still, it’s not about quantifying the unquantifyable, but being able to create some kind lab experiment that would mitigate that type of critcism.
I meant the neo-positivist methodology mainstream economists tend to (think that they) use. I’m undecided on ABM, which is why I mentioned the stipulations I did. I think quite a few tools commonly associated with neoclassical economics (like game theory or axiomatisation) can be rendered consistent with Austrian theory, it’s just the utility of doing so I sometimes question, either in clarifying points of economic theory or providing insights verbal economics cannot.
The thing about agent-based modeling that I find interesting is the idea that emergent phenomena can be seen to spontaneously result from individual interactions. It might be the needed link between micro and macro. Not that I imagine many Austrians would like the idea of that being that the discovered emergent phenomena are not guaranteed to to be positive.
In fact, contradicting the Austrian wannabe-experts here, the latest issue of the Review of Austrian Economics has the article “Examining Social Processes with Agent-Based Models.” I’m sure you’ll find it helpful.
This, and the facts that:
“I meant the neo-positivist methodology mainstream economists tend to (think that they) use. I’m undecided on ABM, which is why I mentioned the stipulations I did. I think quite a few tools commonly associated with neoclassical economics (like game theory or axiomatisation) can be rendered consistent with Austrian theory, it’s just the utility of doing so I sometimes question, either in clarifying points of economic theory or providing insights verbal economics cannot.”
Why must they be rendered consistant with austrian theory? It is really that hard to believe most economic theories have something to contribute? I’d hate to think of where New Institutional economics would be without someone like Hayek.
Inconsistency in conclusions implies one of the two is incorrect, and therefore in need of revision. And yes, it is hard to believe. Some of them might have some insights you could arrive at praxeologically, but then you’d still want to ensure they were put on a firm footing. If they were counterfactuals, you’d need to show what clarification the thought-experiment offers.
Praxeology has very little to see about actual market interactions. Hayek got that one right, not Mises.
See or say? Praxeology has a wealth of implications for markets. The concept of markets is built from it.
Mi Hrvati smo pametniji.
Filc you caught me. I meant to write say, damn typos.
I agree that praxeology has its uses, but the study of actual market exchange is empirical.
Don’t fall into the fallacy where everything is either always a-priori or a posteriori, believeing that the two methods are not used in together. Where one is used the other is not. Even in the natural sciences pitting the two methods against each other goes against science in general.
If markets are taken as a strictly empirical science you will come to a number of radicaly absured conclusions. Like the broken window fallacy for one.
How do you get that impression from my post? Real market exchange is an empirical phenomina, but I never denied any of the basic praxeological axioms (or the pure logic of choice, go hayek).
Because when you make a statement like this you sound like reason is discarded to the side. Real market exchange is only empirical in so far as individual actions are observed objectively after action is taken. But the reasoning that goes into understanding that action never leaves.
I guess I could just be nit-picking but it sounded like earlier you said
So it sounds like your trying to remove aprioristic reasoning from the data you observe. A good scientist goes into his lab with a set of aprioristic rules he will come to expect. This will not only reduce his lab time it will keep him from coming to faulty conclusions.
The same applies to economics. While it’s true that prices and exchange are empirical data, prices being historical data, understanding that data is meaningless if you discard praxeology from the analysis.
“I guess I could just be nit-picking but it sounded like earlier you said”
It was my language that caused the confusion. Forgive me. What I was trying to say is that I side with Hayek on methodology.