The human body is a machine - the most complex and intricate machine we know of, but still just a machine.
…but then you seem to commit the very same error in insisting that materialism is the only right way to ascertain truth.
@Andris: Huh?
So claudius, was Paul Samuelson rigorous with his fancy equations? Even when he said that the Soviet model was fine and sound in 1989?
You are a brave man to flaunt your math skills on a forum where most of the people have a background in hard sciences. Oooh, DSGE models. Sounds real advanced like. Did it hurt your social ‘sciences’ brain to do them?
I think Claudius had a point, even if he kinda overstated (and came off something of an arrogant dick). As somebody who disagrees with the Austrian position on almost everything let me chime in. Once you move past the basic classes in principles and the like I think you start to realise that Austrians often caricature the position of mainstream economists. You can cite ridiculous passages from The General Theory but it doesn’t mean you’re actually saying anything about the macro research that’s been done in the last 30 years. Of course, a decent mathematical background is somewhat required for a decent understanding of this work (which, as of now, I wouldn’t consider myself having). But, a decent Intermediate Micro/ Macro II book or a good book in OI will teach you a lot of stuff that flies well under the radar of most Austrian discussion for the 10^10th rehashing of “Why Kenyes was stupid and evil”.
I’ve kinda come to a few conclusions regarding Austrian economics, the first is simply to the extent that Austrian econ. says something interesting it’s probably not in line with the definition of what most people would consider contemporary economics. Its true that “no model is true” but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t a plethora of economic models that, while somewhat “unrealistic”, help us make a great deal of sense of the world out there. So Austrians can kick up a fuss about certain modelling or simplifying assumptions but if it helps us explain why we see merger waves (and inform antitrust policy) that’s pretty good. On a related note, that part of Austrian economics that does say something about economic phenomena, its moot unless you can show how much of it Austrian theory explains. The old joke that “economists have predicted 11 out of the last 10 recessions” seems especially biting in the Austrian case. Its one thing for Austrians to say “there’s going to be a recession sometime in the future”, I’m pretty sure most people can figure out that as time passes the likelihood of a recession sometime tends towards one. It’s quite another to make an explicit model (and believe me, there is a model implicit in the ABCT) of the theory, statings your assumptions and then putting it to work against the data. If the model is supported by data then congratulations, you’ve showed that you’re theory is relevant, anecdotes about tractors being unuses and houses being empty don’t quite support all the self congratulatory back patting that goes on amongst Austrians. Especially not if the ABCT only turns out to explain one particular business cycle way back in the day in Austria.
Clayton, I have never seen any Austrian state that praxeology is the only method of the social sciences.
Rothbard:
To sum up the relationship and the distinctions between
praxeology and each of the other disciplines, we may describe
them as follows:
Why man chooses various ends: psychology.
What men’s ends should be: philosophy of ethics.
also: philosophy of aesthetics.
How to use means to arrive at ends: technology.
What man’s ends are and have been, and how
man has used means in order to attain them:
history.
The formal implications of the fact that men use
means to attain various chosen ends: praxeology.
Elsewhere he states that the methods of the social sciences range from the most verstende (history) to the least verstende (praxeology; economics). Also see Mises’ discussion of the differences between thymology and praxeology.
You can cite ridiculous passages from The General Theory but it doesn’t mean you’re actually saying anything about the macro research that’s been done in the last 30 years.
You can cite ridiculous passages from The Egyptian Book of the Dead but it doesn’t mean you’re actually saying anything about the macro research that’s been done in the last 3,000 years.
Point is, if the basic principles are ridiculous, 30 years of research built on them will not improve matters.
ABCT only turns out to explain one particular business cycle way back in the day in Austria.
That line belongs in the comments section over here
Without a grasp of the latest research, you have no idea how relevant your criticism are. It’d be like criticizing free marketers by quoting Adam Smith on the labor theory of value.
I dunno, Samuelson’s book is the same ole same ole for decades.
And the opposite is not true?
I have never in my life heard anyone cite passages from The General Theory in anything other than a critique of the text itself. And even then it’s been less than a handful.
Got any examples?
Kind of like how the tales of big Paul Bunyan dragging his big axe on the ground and Pecos Bill ridding a tornado and then getting lost in the desert and being thirsty helped us make a great deal of sense of the Grand Canyon and the Rio Grande.
And astronomers and geometricians can kick up a fuss about how assuming the Earth is flat just because the horizon looks flat is a flawed analysis, but if it helps us explain why Austrialians don’t fall off the bottom (and informs travel restriction policy) that’s pretty good.
And you think any of this is relevant because, what? ABCT didn’t predict and/or can’t explain a certain recession? Which one might you be talking about?
Not only is that more or less a fallacy, the analogy isn’t even a good one. In what way does Adam Smith represent any sort of pioneering effort or historical significance in the realm of free market economics? As shown by the total ignorance of other posts in this thread, it’s kind of important to know something about the history of economic thought and Austrian theory before trying to critique it. Have a look here for the problem with your analogy.
While I could care less what Rothbard says about Smith (and I do think his critique sucks), whatever. Pick your favorite historical champion of liberty. He/she will undoubtedly have been wrong about something related to their argument for liberty. And it proves nothing about the validity of pro-liberty arguments, for obvious reasons.
You could? How much less?
Of course you do. Some actual specifics of your apparent analysis would be useful.
With all the wit and lucidity of a 13 year old girl. Nice.
And I would assume this holds true for economic arguments as well? Regardless of whether that champion published his work in the last few hundred years or in the last…say…30 years?
K, k, k, and sure, what’s your point?
For the record, I’m a FOURTEEN year-old girl.
John James,
How is “k” an answer to my questions? And most would consider my second statement an implied request for your analysis…in which case the letter “k” isn’t really a sensical response either. So…Would you please provide some specifics of your apparent analysis of why “Rothbard’s critique sucks”?
And the point is, if what someone in the field says proves nothing about the validity of the arguments pertaining to that field, then what is the relevance of knowing what a few people in the field say?
Kudos. Most people wouldn’t be able to bring themselves to admit their vocabulary and parlance was a year behind where it should be.
:EDIT:
Switching the placement of two letters to correct a typo.
+1!
Clayton -
justinx0r,
I’m confused. Are you suggesting Coase is David Friedman?
It’s irrelevant, so who cares. Also, didn’t understand what you were getting at before. Look, you can’t criticize modern macro by finding flaws in Keynes. That’s just silly.
Also, you misspelled vocabulary ner ner.