The methodology that there’s no method to. Thymology. Its just whatever we can agree is sufficient inductive evidence.
Are you referring to inductive reasoning in general? If so, then I think where I disagree with you is in the notion that induction can’t be legitimately used with praxeology.
I think it can be used with praxeology. But praxeology is not induction, and has no guidance for inductive questions. Its just “whatever”.
-
I didn’t claim every type of economist makes the mistakes of the others. But I think, and correct me if I’m wrong, that all non Austrains fall into one of those groups. Thus, given an economist, find which group he is in, and you’ll see his mistake.
-
Say doesn’t have to be an Austrian, he merely has to be right, [as point 3 will explain]. And AE concludes that he is, while Keynesians assume he is wrong. Which is their mistake.
- Can you give an example of a conclusion that ONLY an Austrian employing praxeology can reach?
Since praxeology is just correct reasoning from self evident first principles, you are asking if there is a conclusion that can only be reached by that method. So you are asking “Say Theorem X can be arrived at from first principles using deductive reasoning. Can it also be arrived at using faulty reasoning and incorrect assumptions?” Elementary logic teaches that false assumptions and faulty reasoning can arrive at all correct propositions.
The crucial difference is that they arrive at a lot of incorrect stuff too, which AE avoids.
- There is no objectively correct way to predict the future, but there is an objectively incorrect way. If you start from false assumptions and use them as a basis for your predictions, you may be right by sheer luck, but you increase mightily the odds of your being wrong.
An example: You are lost in the woods. You have a true compass, and know you have to go roughly north. That is a better situation to make predictions [I will get home if I head this way] than if you think your compass that actually points south is pointing north.
Another example: You are trying to predict when something will happen. You think it will happen right after two events occur, each of which takes two years. You believe that two plus two equals one, so you predict it will happen in one year. You see the problem.
I’m not sure what you mean by “whatever”. Otherwise, while I agree that praxeology is not induction, I disagree that it has no guidance for inductive questions. Praxeology here serves as a model of (human) reality that inferences and predictions can be tested against.
If this isn’t redundant to what has already been stated, why do you think that? It seems to me that praxeology can and is always used by Austrians to make predictions.
I think Walter Block laid it all out very clearly, as did my distinction between pure and applied AE.
I am getting the impression that you assume the mainstream just uses the usual methods every intelligent person has at his disposal trying to live his life. Inductive reasoning, educated guesses. But, sadly, they use much more than that. They make all kinds of mistaken theoretical assumptions, as listed above.
In addition, some of them try and back their wild assertions with flawed methodology. Allow me to elaborate on this for a moment.
A physicist assumes that certain equations describe reality. The layman thinks that all the equations he uses are 100% correct. But when you delve into it, they tell you quite unashamedly that all their equations are simplifications of reality, and ignore factors they assume to be insignificant. For example, to make calculations easy, they will say “sin x can be approximated by x for small values of x, so let’s do that.” Or “friction in this instance is so small we can ignore it.” One of my physics teachers said “Physics is the art of knowing what to ignore.”
Many mainstream economists live their lives and make their predictions based on equations. They admit that the equations are, as in physics, simplifications of reality, but assert that, as in physics, what they ignore can be safely ignored without arriving at mad conclusions. Sadly, they often ignore what cannot be ignored.
A famous example is Mv=Py, assuming v, P, and y variables independent of M.
In practice, it may be difficult to find mainstream economists who do not fall to these fallacies. But in principle, there is no reason why a non-austrian cannot avoid all these mistakes. There are perfectly reasonable non-praxeological objections to everything you listed. Simply consider that treating individuals and markets mechanically like physical processes and natural systems would lead to similar results.
Sure. But the point is that we don’t need praxeology to say yay or nay to Say. Maybe praxeology is sufficient, but not necessary.
I deny that elementary logic teaches that false assumptions and faulty reasoning stop you from arriving at correct propositions. Whether someone with incorrect methodology can obtain the right answer is an inductive matter. At best, being apoditically correct makes your propositions deductively certain. But Austrianism has by no means a monopoly on the truth, much less practical application.
In fact, it might even be the case that “incorrect” or fungible theoretical methodologies consistently yield better results. As an analogy, consider numerical approximations to equations where analytical solutions are impossible. They’re “incorrect” but they’re 99.99% accurate, which is better than the answer you will never get trying to solve unsolvable equations.
I don’t deny that Austrians tend to have a better track record. But this says nothing about praxeology’s intrinsic superiority. It could easily be that ANYTHING that denies mainstream dogma yields superior results. If I disbelieve sticky wages because of flying unicorns (totally arbitrary), then I will avoid the problem. It doesn’t mean flying unicorns is a good or useful economic theory (in itself).
But you didn’t say explicitly - do you concede that Austrianism has no unique (applicable) truths? Is your only claim that AE is error-free?
Exactly. You have to give an inductive defense of praxeology. That’s the best you (or anyone) can do.
Your errors could also cancel out. Ex: you make one math mistake and then you make another which reverses it. Your theoretical errors might also not matter if you have a calculator or just rely on your fingers. So you see there are all sorts of perfectly reasonable ways to get around without relying on being apodictically correct in your head. There is no rule of the universe that says “only people who know THE TRUTH TM can regularly make correct predictions”.
Sure. I mean I’m not a fan of most economists. I think what they do is borderline trolling. But that doesn’t mean I default to Austrianism.
What you describe is engineering. Real physics deals with things that follow from thermodynamic laws, figuring out if gravitrons exist (binary yes/no), kind of thing.
But yeah sure people can misapply and mislead using equations.
By “whatever” I mean… “whatever”! 95% confidence intervals! Why not? Sounds good. Sounds acceptable. Controlled studies with n=3000 split evenly between control groups and test groups doubleblind equaly air conditioned! Sounds good.
But what guidance does praxeology have? To tell us that humans act purposefully? So what if I ignore that? What if I say “people eat 2500 calories a day, on average” and don’t bother about why? Dunno, they just do it. They’re black boxes. Or they do it because chemical processes potantiate hunger potentiates eating. At what point do I need AE to study and predict the economics of food consumption? What erroneous conclusions do I risk making (other than failing to realize that THEY HAVE A PURPOSE DAMNIT!!!).
Is it? As far as I know, you can’t even derive “markets” or “trade” from praxeology.
I mean, Austrians say they make predictions using praxeology. I disagree. I think they use praxeologic vocabulary. I think they phrase things in ways that do not violate praxeology. But this does not mean they actively EMPLOY it to make predictions.
You can derive markets and trade from praxeology.
Here’s a little informal proof
Assumptions: men perform purposeful behavior blah blah blah you know what I’m going to say, and property rights are enforced
- Man desires something
- If man believes that he can obtain this thing through exchange and he believes that exchange is more beneficial than force then he will attempt to exchange for the object so long as he benefits what he has to exchange more than what he surrenders.
- If sellers have no favoritism to buyers then they will attempt to sell at a higher price
- Step 3 but with buyers and reversed
- So long as fluctuations do not happen radically enough fast enough then a general price will emerge for the good in question at such a point where no buyers want to buy any more and no owners wish to sell anymore, if this were not the case then exchange at new prices would continue
- In future sellers will produce in such a way as to maximize their profit all else equal and will produce insofar as they appreciate expected profits over what they must surrender to obtain them.
This is a praxeological proof that markets can emerge. I would like to point out that this does not mean that markets MUST emerge. Steps 1 and 2 are essential.
I didn’t know property rights were praxeological. Praxeology doesn’t apply to dictators and slaves?
Does he? I don’t mean to be obtuse, but from an a priori perspective this is non sequitur.
If. If. If…
Why is this praxeology? Where is it essential that human beings act purposefully? Even inanimate objects can act and react according to mechanical laws.
Mr. Positivist writes in your debate, ““controlled experiments (and extrapolation of their outcomes) is a much thornier issue in the social sciences than in, say, physics.”
These people never cease to amaze me. It’s not “thornier” issue, it’s an entirely different ballgame. But never mind that, they say, science is pure empiricism. Repeat and rinse. (Btw, don’t let him get away with saying social sciences - point out that we are talking, more specifically, about the human decision-making process and the formation of ideas in the human mind.)
One person I argued with actually slammed Mises because - now get this - empericism could conceivably predict and describe all human ideas, behavior, and choices. We’re not too far away, he claimed. I nearly passed out. Gazillions upon gazillions of variables sorted out and run through a supercomputer that looks like something like the Wayback machine, I’m guessing. And then it spits out a piece of paper predicting I will say “sh*t” when I lose my keys and pay $10 for a cab.
Some people hold onto a point until they make themselves look silly. It’s like Wile E. Coyote clutching the shredded umbrella during a fall.
Of course, this guy walked himself into this corner because he realized that he would have to take the position to hold fast to his argument. My guess is, in your debate, your opponents will cleverly avoid getting backed into this, but ultimately, unless they admit it’s possible, methodological dualism stands as the better choice.
No they’re not and it does, I meant that the necessary praxeological assumptions are assumed as well as the fact that property rights are enforced, this is a specific case of praxeology, although praxeology still applies in societies in which property righs are not enforced, however a precurssor to markets is some sort of property right enforcement, either mental or physical.
From a praxeological perspective the characteristic of man is that he desires things, if this were not so then he would stop being man and stop acting altogether. You’re right that there’s no reason physiologically that man HAS to value something, this should have gone in the assumption set.
Yes, there are a lot of “ifs” involved but that does not mean that they are not necessary to the proof and are not true. Tell me, how many people do you know who all of our assumptions thusfar do not apply? Chances are none of them, which only affirms that praxeology can really tell us something about the real world.
Because it’s a logical proof arising from the basic axiom that man acts to fulfill his own self interest…
If man did not act purposefully then this would not follow, it could run as “man desires something. Man places lemon on head”, the minute that we know men do not act with purpose then we can’t say what they will do, if people act at all then they would simply to random and incoherent things. If, however, man acts with purpose, then he will attempt to fulfill his wants, and if he knows that one way to do this is through exchange then he will indeed exchange if he believes is suits him.
Yes but not praxeological laws because rocks don’t act purposefully, they follow chemical and physical laws, but not praxeological ones. Rocks don’t desire or think (we think) and can’t act (we know) and so they do not form markets.
Sieben, I really believe that if you have not already that just reading the first 50 pages or so of human action might really clear up a lot of your confusion about praxeology.
We are empiricists…radical ones at that. Scientific method =/= empiricism.
In a way, many of us could even be accused of…gasp…scientism. We just acknowledge things from a more inter-subjective German continental point of view rather than British empiricism.
So what? You said you could derive markets from praxeology and now you’re not. And everything purposeful is a special case of praxeology. This does not mean your explanation of it DEPENDS on praxeology.
Empirically there is no way to prove that a specific ocurrance is an “action”, because you’re not sure if an agent is acting purposefully.
I’m not saying they’re implausible. I’m saying your extra assumptions and “ifs” are non-praxeological. Human beings act… and IF XYZ and IF ABC then trade.
It does not arise from that alone. It also depends on real world physics. Praxeology cannot tell us that division of labor is useful. Praxeology cannot tell us that men are within trading distance of one another. Praxeology cannot tell us that the goods men desire are tradable. Etc etc. It is only when you staple countless “ifs” into your “proof” that you can get anywhere, and the proof itself isn’t praxeological just because you maintain that people are acting purposefully.
False dichotomy. Without praxeology we do not think actions ocurr randomly. Projectile motion is non-praxeologic and non-random. It is enough to say that “Man desires” and therefore “Man seeks”. Nevermind if these are purposeful decisions. A robot can be programmed to “act” in the physical sense. It is not inaccurate to assume that men are robots.
My point is that we don’t need praxeology to describe the real world. Do you really think that we cannot describe man without knowing that he “acts purposefully”, unless he doesn’t, in which case it does not count as action? Automotive concepts like “instinct” are equally explanatory. There is also a significant non-praxeological component to humans and economies, but I guess they don’t count because they’re not praxeologic.
This is all also really ad hoc. You can never know in advance whether someone’s actions are purposeful. At best, after the fact, you say “AHA they had a purpose in doing that!”. It is strictly definitional. It does not enhance your predictive power.
Human action is purposeful. Got it. Don’t really feel like reading 50 pages on it, especially when this conversation is beyond the scope of mere definitions.
Sieben I think I finally understand where you err, and it’s that you don’t understand the way that praxeology is used. To my knowledge no one ever claimed that they could derive any concrete proofs of the actions of men a priori, applied praxeology is the only type that can tell us anything about the actual world. The method of economics or any other science which hopes to learn anything from praxeology must not be to just to stop at the assumption of human action, they must apply it to certain situations.
For instance Mises spends a good deal of time establishing the theoretical construction of a pure market economy, one model of economic organization and, as Mises would put it, a “praxeological category”
True, but this doesn’t matter because of the fact that we all prettymuch know that the amount of stuff that people actually do instinctually is tiny. If you believe that the vast majority of people are acting from instinct with most of their relevant actions then you first have to answer the question “why would they act that way if they were acting instinctually?”. It is a possibility, but I consider it about as likely as the possibility that there are no people at all
The only way that praxeology can be applied is if real world conditions are inserted, otherwise you’re right it would be absolutely useless.
Yes it is, see the Mises quote below. Real world conditions have to be added to the proof, and as for how men actually act part of it depends upon real world conditions, but how men actually act depends upon what they think happened. So for instance if, in a market economy, a person thought that something was tradeable and valued a proposed exchange then he would attempt to trade the thing.
Yes but projectile motion is not action in the praxeological sense, it cannot lead men to actually do anything rational except insofar as it leads to rational action through the formation of the human psyche. If you say “man desires” and therefore “man seeks” then this will mean nothing unless you intend for it to lead to praxeology. For instance “man desires cake” “man seeks cake”. This can only be done then if man has an actual way to seek cake and if he has a concept of utility and disutility then he will act to maximize his own utility in relation to his search for cake. If this is not the case and he has no sense of utility then we cannot even concieve of this individual’s actions.
Robots can be made to act in the physical sense but we are not talking about the physical sense, until real AI is achieved then robots will simply follow physical laws, however when they can think and act thent they will follow praxeological laws. Indeed, in some ways the more advanced AI’s already do.
Yes, we very clearly do. You cannot explain what people are doing or what they will do or even have done without a conception of praxeology. I bought cake because I wanted the cake more than the money I spent on it. If I value money as valuable then as price goes up the more reluctant I will be to spend my money on the cake because it will mean more and more sacrifice of what I find valuable. How in the world are you going to describe this in any other way?
How can instinct explain to us why economies form? And how can it explain how people act when most action in our day is not instinctual, or at least most people believe so, I don’t know whether or not you believe that you’re actually making concious decisions. Also, Mises also deals with this idea of instinctual ideas about man and the economy in Human Action
Like what? And not necessarily, for instance real laws of nature have a very large impact upon how human action proceeds especially as far as man percieve it to do so.
Basically the same prediction as above, and you can certainly estimate that the vast majority of things people do today which have any real significance are purposeful. If you do not agree with this then it is an entirely different issue.
Sieben, I’m sorry but you don’t understand how praxeology is actually utilized. This is what I hate, that somehow people can hang around these forums for years and not glean much about what exactly Mises said or meant.
This is a quote by Mises in the section titled “The procedure of economics” in Human Action. I’m sorry about the spacing it’s what PDF does
No one EVER claimed that you could really use praxeology without real world conditions or theoretical models, AKA “ifs” and assumptions.
I just came acroos this papaer today, this may help you out:
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/leeson-boetteke-paper-on-misean-methodology/20722
I’m not in error. I knew the right answer all along. You either misunderstood or are shifting your goalposts back so you can look like you achieved your goal.
What does something have to be to count as “instinct”? I’m inclined to say that a large portion of behaviour is uhh… not 100% conscious. I mean, I bought cocoa puffs today. If I had been asked to fill out a psychological survey explaining myself, I would have written “Fuck yeah cocoa puffs”. What I’m actually going to do is eat them over the course of the week. But I didn’t plan it like that. Just… “Fuck yeah cocoa puffs”.
Which is why Austrianism doesn’t get superpowers just because it has praxeology. In fact, mainstream economists, or theorists who are not aware that they are studying humans, can arive at equally predictive economic models.
Well we both agree that the proof is totally dependent upon, and is totally animated by, our introduced non-praxeological variables. Are you maintaining that just because you vocalize inert praxeological phrases that the proof is praxeological?
I know projectile motion is not an action, but it still exists. Similarly human bodies can undertake “non-actions” that are meaningful in the real world.
And yes it is enough to say that “man desires cake” or “man appears to seek cake”. Robots can be programmed to “seek cake”. Projectiles can be said to “seek the ground”. It’s just a bad metaphor for a derivative. All the stipulations you add on, like the necessity of a way to seek cake and utility/disutility are non-praxeologic. As for utility? Well, that’s not unique to praxeology. In fact, mainstream economists take utility too far.
The point is that a robot programmed to “act” would be non-praxeological, but you could still describe its “actions”, even though praxeology would maintain that THOSE AREN’T ACTIONS DAMNIT!!! I say… so what.
Simply by observing your cake purchase, I know nothing. I don’t know if you acted consciously or robotically. I don’t see any reason to impose an ad hoc value judgment on the action - “oh yeah you valued X more than Y what a great economist I am”. So what if you DID value X > Y? Hmmm.
Because economies just depend on division of labor and trade. In many ways the flow of goods and services is like the flow of oil in reservoirs. Sure the real economy is more complex, and maybe it has a purpose, but so what? It is sufficient that economies EXIST.
Well, there’s instinct, however you want to define that. Then there’s also hurricaines and stuff. And there’s the natural scarcity of resources, and the engineering constraints put on how those resources can be combined, etc. A lot more goes into markets than conscious human action (which is PURPOSEFUL I TELL YOU!)
Well you did claim you could derive markets from praxeology, but now you’re backing up and claiming that you need to include a bunch of other stuff about the real world to do it. I’m going one step further and claiming that without praxeology, you just kind of view the world mechanically, which isn’t necessarily less accurate, unless you think not asserting that action is purposeful is somehow an error.
What you quoted doesn’t deal in any way with the second thing you quoted. The fact is that Austrians do use praxeology to construct proofs and I showed you how below as well as including a fairly thorough passage from a half century document which is still the authority on Austrian economics so it’s not like this is new stuff. My entire goal here is to show that praxeology is used by Austrians to derive their beliefs, this should not be a hard thing to agree upon.
Once again a misunderstanding of praxeology, it doesn’t say that you conciously planned or wanted something a long time ahead of time, there need not be any more than one instant of planning and you need not even fully realize that you’re doing whatever, indeed I would argue most people live their lives in this dulled state, but the fact is that on some level you wanted coco puffs and so you got out a bowl filled it with coco puffs and milk and ate it. You don’t have to plan a long time ahead of time, you don’t have to have fully consider it, but it was a rational action with your values and view of the world at that instant. No one ever claimed otherwise.
Yes but what I like to call “half praxeology” plays a huge role in this. Adam Smith never heard of praxeology, it had not been invented yet, most economists too put little or no credence in praxeology or at least the Austrian method, but every economist worth his salt has to at least understand on some level the fact that men work in their own self interest or to incentives. This is not the same as a fully developed praxeological perspective but it is somewhat similar and embodying some of its predictive power. If you take an economist who ignores any sort of concious human action and one who uses a praxeological method the latter will do infinitely better, but if you take one who has a basic model of human choice and utility and one who uses the praxeological method, sometimes they will come to the same conclusions, other times slightly different ones or totally different ones. The difference is that the praxeological method will always be more correct if employed properly.
Yes, it employs the praxeological and economic methods that are outlined in Mises’ work and that of any self respecting Austrian who has written on the subject.
No one claimed that they didn’t, those things are beyond the scope of praxeology, but the fact is that unless they have some huge impact then nothing will change. If the brain were to erase all of a man’s memories every 15 minutes then most praxeological proofs would be absolutely f***ed, but if a man has a slight subconscious twitch in his left eye then the proof will almost certainly be unaffected. No one said that motion doesn’t exist because its praxeological, just that it is beyond the scope of praxeology.
Utility and disutility are praxeological, as is a mental model for how to seek cake, before one goes to seek cake is. If a robot goes to seek cake and it has an advanced AI system that allows it to think in different ways and built a complex view of the universe, then it will follow praxeological laws. If it seeks cake then it will do this in relation to its own utility, for the robot utility is infinite in relation to finding cake, it will attempt to do this in the most efficient and fast way it knows possible at that instant, unless there are built in commands like “do not drive through Mrs. Smith’s flowers” or “do not make much noise”. If the robot has no conception of its universe and no thought per se, and it just drives around looking for cake without any idea of “cake is made by bakers, therefore cake will likely be in a bakery” then it will simply drive around until it finds cake, this is beyond praxeology, but unless you claim that people work like this when all evidence is to the contrary, then it does not affect our outcomes.
Utility is not unique to praxeology but so what? You’re right in that the way mainstream economists use utility is totally fallacious, in praxeology utility is a totally internal human phenomenon that affects man’s decision making, not something that can actually be measured
Those aren’t praxeological actions, this does not mean that they are not “actions” in a different sense of the word. No one ever claimed that this could not happen, just like how Austrians use the word “rational” in totally a totally different way than most people, economists included, do.
Perfectly true, just one thing Sieben NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT PEOPLE ACT LIKE ROBOTS. If you disagree then please lay out a case for this. If you’re saying that somehow a man’s instinct commands him into a transaction, like monkeys do in the jungle all the time, please lay out a case for this too. No one has ever claimed that instinct can somehow do things like get people to make transactions, if this is not the case, and we know men act rationally, then they must have valued X more than Y, there is no other way that this could have been brought about.
Sufficient to do what? And one cannot understand WHY the economy works in this form, and therefore what is really even going on, without an understanding of human action and value.
In what you quoted I even agreed that natural laws and real conditions effect the economy, of course they do, man acts in response to his external environment, and how praxeology actually turns out depends upon real physical laws which you can see quite clearly in the Mises quote above. I have already addressed instinct above as well.
I thought that it was implied when I said I could do that that I was allowed to insert real world conditions, if I am not allowed to do that, then you are right, praxeology cannot derive anything about real world actions or anything economically. It’s similar to having a scanner and saying “this scanner could tell us about the levels of X Y and Z in a substance” but then not being able to actually use it on anything. We know it can tell us things if we use it, but we have to actually apply it. A mechanical view of the world is fine if you use praxeology, otherwise you cannot determine what in the world people would actually do except insofar as you translated rational human action into mechanical jargon. For instance, there is an increase in scarcity and a decrease in all around good available, how is it that your mechanical view would explain what would happen after the fact without reference to actual human action and rationality? Would their instincts somehow bring them to raise prices?
So in short, yes, viewing a strictly human phenomenon without reference to how humans act is an error. It would be like referencing the actions of a machine without reference to physics and with reference to rational action.
Yes it does. You think that just because Austrians use praxeological vocabulary it means they are using it to derive things. But in your example, you just stapled a bunch of hypothetical non praxeological stipulations to a few praxeological definitions, didn’t employ them (hint: if human beings act “purposefully”, then there should be a step where “human beings acting” is substituted for “purposeful” in a non-trivial way), and then claimed that the “proof” was praxeological even though it can be derived without praxeology if you grant your hypothetical points.
Straw man. I never made the point that extended contemplation was necessary. I just said “fuck yeah, cocoa puffs”. If you are going to psychoanalyse me (lol) and say that “oh well you must have wanted cocoa puffs because you bought them”, then you are engaging in circular logic. You are wholesale ruling out the possibility that I am not acting in any praxeological sense. Why are you allowed to automatically make this leap? How do you know I’m not a robot? Is it because you “assume I am not a robot”? You may as well just say “Assume praxeology”. See where the circularity comes in?
Cocoa puffs. Fuck yeah. End analysis.
Actually economists have used it the assumption that people act in their own self interest as a first approximation. They do not believe it to always be true. In fact, rather than using this to arrive at circular conclusions such as saying in ad hoc “action X must have been in his self interest”, economists try to figure out what is in people’s self interest (higher incomes, more leisure time, etc) and then figure out how people are meeting those goals and speculating that they will adopt different methods under changing price and technology levels.
So no, it isn’t like praxeology. In fact “incentives” are analogous to physical forces. Balls fall to the ground. Humans try to get what they want. It does not depend on people being (or not being) robots.
Appeal to authority. The entire proof is animated by non-praxeological stipulations. In fact it does not even depend on praxeology. That’s why I say you can’t derive markets from praxeology.
Exactly. Virtually EVERYTHING is beyond praxeology. Even markets. Because markets depend on way, way, way, more than just identifying that if you define someone as a man, and if you define a particular thing he does as an action, and if you define actions as purposeful, then he is a man acting purposefully. So what? Good job praxeology. You are apodictically “correct”.
But if the robot’s AI is not sufficiently complex, whatever that would take, then the robot does not follow praxeological laws but nontheless seeks cake. In fact, if you don’t know a robot’s AI, and you see a Robot seeking cake, what can you say? Nothing. From hypothesis you do not know if it is “acting” in the praxeological sense. But you can still analyze the Robot’s behaviour “economically”. And so we see how praxeology is a third wheel.
The reductio is that the exact same “economy” participated in by Robots vs Humans would be modeled the same in the mainstream view, but would somehow be different under the Austrian view. If it is different, it is not meaningfully different.
Chemistry.
Really?
If. If. If. If I’m right and you’re wrong, then you’re wrong and I’m right. Do you see how useless it is to use hypotheticals like this? How it isn’t a “proof”? How it isn’t meaningful?
Sufficient to model them. Sufficient to know why all the physical stuff happens, down to the individual level. What possibly dimension could be missed by assuming that people are robots? AAAH ITS NOT PURPOSEFUL AAAAA
No. You’ve conceded that they exist and make up the bulk of modern economics, but you haven’t shown that just by introducing a definition (human action = purposeful) you can change anything.
Yeah sure. But if you DEPEND SOLELY ON THEM then the proof isn’t praxeologic anymore. For example, if I say that I can derive modern economies from some trivial definition like “pinapples are yellow fruit (damnit!)”, and I say P1) Pinapples are yellow fruit P2-10) Real World Stuff that does not depend on P1, therefore, Markets, then I’m not deriving markets from pinapples.
The same thing that happens if you change a charged particle’s gravitational field. It moves in accordance with how the field is changed.
And praxeology cannot even tell you that increasing prices has any consequences, because technically, changing a good’s price changes the good itself and also depends on like… tons and tons of other stuff. Its all psychological. Praxeology is not mojo and the only way you’re going to wiggle out of this is to introduce a whole bunch of non-praxeological assumptions and then pretend like you were being praxeological. Zzzzzzzz