Invalid answer.
Doesn’t Roderick Long use just this example to show that we don’t mean anything empirical by 1+1=2?
No, it isn’t. You committed a category fallacy.
equals 2. Attempting to create a false analogy only means you lose.
Math is a science. Stop being such a positivist.
Shh, don’t let the positivists hear you.
sighs Spidey, didn’t you even read my post regarding the Age of Enlightenment philosophers who are both rationalists and empiricists? Let me expand it if you didn’t grasp the implication. Asserting an empirical proposition itself isn’t one that assumes in any sphere of human inquiry that all propositions are empirical. Nor does it assume the reverse, that a given proposition that’s rational suggests all other propositions are wholly rational. In fact, many propositions are a combination of empirical and rational (or more properly stated, deductive and inductive). Granted, Kant showed us there can be certain kinds of knowledge which can be handedly deductive or inductive, but even his dichotomy (analytic-synthetic dichotomy) never suggests a magical barrier between the two. Rather, it merely suggests extremes of a spectrum of possible propositions.
Similarly, economic inquiries can be largely classified as deductive (or analytic) in nature as they operate from given truths known about any set of economic situations. Whether it’s the daily purchase of bread or the quarterly movement of stocks in a fund, their underlying principles depend on the self-evident or purely rational. This is why there’s a wide gap between modern Neoclassical Synthesis advocates and the “Austrian school” as the Neoclassical Synthesis (and the Friedmanites) bit hard into the poison apple of positivism, thus forsaking any a priori based analysis of any given economic phenomena.
Nerditarian, to begin with, I’d put Rizzo as one of the modern generations of Austrians. I don’t really know who I’d include in this category of modern Austrians, perhaps Lachmann and Sennholz might be included. As I said, I don’t know who is a better economist out of this generation, but from what I’ve read, I’d be tempted to say Kirzner is perhaps a deeper thinker than Rothbard as can be seen by his work on capital and entrepreneurship. This said, I’m not really sure, so don’t take my word on it.
As for intellectuals, I think you’re missing (as do many Austrians, and laymen followers of AE) the distinction between academics and public intellecf tuals. I’d argue that the former don’t have much of an effect on public opinion, the latter do. The fact of the matter is that Keynesianism has been out of fashion in academia for some time now, however, that does not mean that it is looked down upon by those “intellectuals” that are in the public eye. For example, new classical economists argue that countercyclical policy is ineffective, but their views have little bearing when it comes to what the public believe. The result is that Austrian works often tend to be somewhere in between the level of scholarship necessary to be published in academic journals and the level of clarity required to communicate effectively with the public. The problem being that they acheive neither task and ultimately end up worse off for it.
Look at it this way, Robert Murphy is a very smart guy and he’s done work on the problems with the pure time preference theory of interest. He’s also done work aimed at the general public. Now, do you think in his PIG to Capitalism he mentioned any of the issues he raised in his PhD dissertation concerning the PTP theory of interest?
we have Mr Woods now.
No.
First of all, you are using a kind of ad hoc fallacy here. A science is a science, and economics fits the definition of a science. Economics is a science. There’s no point in denying it or ignoring it.
Secondly, whereas science is “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws,” philosophy is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as “investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods” and “the critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.” In other words, the definition of philosophy is wider than the definition of science. It’s kind of like a rectangle vs. a square: the square is still a rectangle, yet it is distinct.
This is partially true. But Keynesian high theory at one point existed as created by intellectuals. Then in the next generation or so these theories were popularized until they came to pervade popular opinion. Now did not Keynes, indirectly across, affect massive change in public opinion? I would argue that he did even if this was indirectly.
However, it has been an Austrian tradition to write both for popular audiences and academic audiences. Mises did this. Rothbard did this. Murphy is doing this. Now is this effective? I don’t know. However, at the same time I don’t know if a man like Rothbard could have been satisfied only doing academic work.
The second part of your criticism: that Austrians are both inaccessable to the public and not scholarly enough for academic journals. Austrians are inaccessable to the public? Well, those who popularize AE like Woods have been on the NYT best sellers list for doing so and the effects of this book on future public opinion and stregthening the remnant have yet to be seen. It’s certainly not fair to count Austrians out on this count. As for the charge that Austrians are not scholarly enough for most academic journals, I must admit I do not read the AER. However, are Austrians excluded from these journals on the basis of how good their work is or because they are not mathematical economists? I am sceptical of any suggestion that the later is inaccurate. Yet, mathematical economics and Austrian economics are like apples and oranges. How can we compare the two here?
Point well taken. However, is the PIG to Capitalism inaccessable to its target audience? I think not. Is his PhD dissertation not scholarly enough writing for academic journals? I haven’t read it, but I’m willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Actually what Keynes promoted wasn’t “new” - it was just mercantilism rehashed along with the age-old policies of inflation, inflexible wages, big government etc. I think those policies have always been at the top of the political agenda; Keynes and his followers just provided them with a bit more ammunition (and blamed the neoclassicals for failed Keynesian policies, much like how the free market is getting blamed today).
What’s easier to sell (and win votes): hard work, individual responsibility, savings, and productivity; or reckless spending, protectionism, bailouts, no individual responsbility, and (well disguised) plunder for the nomenklatura? Hmm, tough one.
Unfortunately while with the latter they simply have to pronounce “this will create 10,000 jobs” to applause from the voters, but to show that it displaces a minimum of 10,000 elsewhere requires…a bit more time and effort and will likely be ignored anyway. It’s the old Bastiat seen and unseen issue.
Of course, and I don’t think that matters anyway. My point was that the public have no idea what’s going on in academia, and wouldn’t understand any of it if they did. For example, I think new classicism would be largely lost on most laymen, even if they’re reasonably intelligent. Moreover, new classical economics says, to some extent, the same things as Austrians do when it comes to counter-cyclical policy. The point I’m trying to get across is that Keynesian economics dominates the MSM without having much sway in academia. As for Keynes affecting public opinion, I’m interest to know the causes for the Keynesian revolution, it doesn’t make a lot of sense besides the fact that the depression had hit and what people presumed to be “laissez - faire” wasn’t working. Also, Keynes’ influence was in no small part due to his personality and the circles in which he mixed.
I don’t think anybody should avoid writing popular expositions to focus on writing for academic audiences, just that any given writing should be aimed at one or the other. There’s a clear distinction between Liberalism and Human Action, on the other hand I think some of Hoppe’s (The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism) and Rothbard’s (The Ethics of Liberty, For a New Liberty) writings are somewhere between the two, or are one of them whilst pretending to be the other.
The Meltdown, The PIG to Capitalism and PIG to the Great Depression are all clearly popular expositions though, and they do this well. My point was not that no Austrian has ever written work that can be intelligeble (sp?) to the layman, just that, most Austrians tend to be somewhere between scholarly work and popular expositions.
A quick fact I like to repeat, Rothbard was published in: American Economic Review, American History Review, Ameriournacan Political Science Review, Journal of Economic Literature, Journal of Economic History, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Political Science Quarterly and Southern Economic Review.
Hayek was published in Econometrica, Economica, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Journal of Political Economy, Southern Economic Journal, U of Chicago Law Review. Mises was published in Economic Journal, Economica, Journal of Social Philosophy & Jurisprudence. Lachmann was published in Economica, Quarterly Journal of Economics, South African JE, Journal of Economic Literature. Kirzner has been published in Eastern EJ, Atlantic EJ, History of Political Economy, Critical Review.
And as for some modern Austrians (Selgin, White, Garrison, Cochran, Boettke, Horwitz and others): The Economic Journal, Journal of Economic Literature, Public Choice, Critical Review, HOPE, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Journal of Macroeconomic, Journal of Economic Methodology, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Eastern Economic Journal, Journal of Public Finance, Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Journal of Labour Research, Southern Economic Journal and I’m sure I’m missing some others.
Now, the fact of the matter is that a lot of those journals are top journals, some aren’t as good as others but it’s clear that Austrians can publish in mainstream journals whilst keeping Austrian, it’s most certainly not clear that Austrians have no chance. I don’t disagree that it will be more difficult for Austrians to get in to the top journals without the formalism of mainstream economics. But if Austrians are doing top rate work, it won’t be impossible to get into top ranking journals.
As for comparing the methodology of mainstream economics with Austrian economics, the two are different. I’d argue that the former is just a high quality as the latter, it’s just irrelevant. In spite of that, it’s highly sophisticated and the work done is done by exceedingly intelligent people.
But I think that proves my point, although, like you I don’t know about his PhD dissertation.
There is no false analogy. I am not making an analogy.
It has nothing to do with positivism, and I wish you would all stop with trying to associate it as such. It has to do with semantics.
Which is fine, but again, then everything is a science, so who cares?
Which can also be applied to painting. Again, if science is such a general term, who cares if it is classified as such?
No its not. Science means systematic knowledge. Economics is systematic knowledge, which makes it a science. Creationism is not. A painting is not.
Oh really? Well what exactly is “systematic knowledge” as opposed to “non-systematic knowledge”?
Systematic knowledge has a rational methodology. It uses concepts that are established a priori. Those could be axioms, logical devices, numbers, and/or arbitrary constant systems of measurements.
Nonsystematic knowledge is “There is a god and he wants you to obey some rules cause he said so”, or “I think capitalists are bad and they exploit the worker”, or doing quantitative economics even though important variables cannot be measured or controlled for.
When one paints such and such a way, one gets such and such a result. So yes, painting is a science. Who cares if economics is as well?
As far as measurments, those principles are very much emprical since it takes a process of trail, and error, with the physical world considered, to come up with the optimal measurments; ergo, they are not a priori.
In addition, would not most of the physical sciences by nonsystematic in your framework since they do not use a priori concepts?
Actually, they use quite a few a priori concepts, one of them being the law of non-contradiction, another being the assumption of time-invariant causality, the use of mathematics (including laws of probability) &c. &c. So they’re very much based upon them.