What do you think of the following proposition?:
If praxeology is the study of purposeful human action and the trade cycle is (partially) the result of non-purposeful action, then the trade cycle can’t (fully) be explained using praxeology.
Is the conditional true? If it is, what about the antecedent?
That would be true, but you have to keep in mind what purposful and unpurposful action is according to praxeology.
The latter would actually be an oxymoron, action is always purposful, and it’s contrasted with, say, reactions that our bodies are programmed with, like jerking your hand back when you touch something hot.
If such reactions could cause a trade cycle, then you’d be right, but I don’t see how they can.
And even if they could, ABCT would still be true, there’d just be more to the story then praxeology could explain.