Haven’t listened to it yet myself, but its hot off the press.
| ##### Friedman and Mises on Method Showing that Milton Friedman’s criticism of Austrian apriorism and his criticism of the Austrian rejection of unrealistic economic models are rooted in the same philosophical mistake. Recorded 30 July 2010 in Auburn, Alabama. [59:48] |
Roderick T. Long | Friday, July 30, 2010 |
|---|
Awesome timing!
P.S. My earlier thoughts, called “half thoughts” by you, simply mean this: Mises advanced an entire philosophy (praxeology) based on a conception of mind that is now being criticized by philosophers (e.g., Paul Churchland) and neuroscientists.
Vernon Smith, the famous “experimental economist” (thereby disproving the claims made by Mises and Rothbard that economics can’t be studied experimentally), had a very thoughtful review of Human Action that brought into focus some serious methodological failings: http://www.indytruth.org/library/journals/catojournal/19/cj19n2-1.pdf.
And, so far as I know but have yet been able to confirm, Smith is an anarcho-capitalist.
philosophers were anti-economics and anti-mises in the past. Mises wrote openly about such tensions.
Do modern philosophers reject statements such as that voluntary trades occur due to ex-ante value inequalities of agents whereby they both benefit?If they do so much the worse for them.
It seems you have two approaches if you want to continue in this vain.
Have a go at actually presenting a definite argument against Mises that you pull from one of the philosophers you place stock in.
or
Have a go at showing what ‘superior’ truth and insight follows from the ‘new philosophers’ approach to answering questions of economics
calling yourself an experimental economist somehow proves that economic truth can be learned experimentally like a physical science?
No, but earning a Nobel prize and the esteem of colleagues sure makes you wonder…
Makes you wonder how someone like Krugman can propound the boken window fallacy and not have his prize revoked
Austrian methodology overly relies upon folk psychology, as far as I’m concerned. I would like to see an Austrian economist seriously grapple with Paul and Patricia Churchland’s eliminative materialism.
Could you tell me why they would have to? I’d seriously like either of them to grapple with the problems their own philosophical tripe faces.
Vernon Smith, the famous “experimental economist” (thereby disproving the claims made by Mises and Rothbard that economics can’t be studied experimentally
Wow, got us there. I can’t tell if you’re trolling or just over-excitable. The fact that Vernon delves in a field called “experimental economics” no more proves its possibility than the existence of astrologers proves the veracity of astrology. Now I don’t mean to say they’re on par, but that is effectively that to which your argument reduces.
Neoclassical,
Care for a one-on-one debate over methodological dualism?
Why wonder? All economics prizes are awarded by central banks.
It’s even funnier because Vernon Smith calls himself a Hayekian, and he most certainly would never dare call himself a neo-classical in the same vein of the poster bearing the same name.
Vernon Smith is a Hayekian because he advocates “ecological rationality” over “constructivist rationality,” and he has a particular interest in Hayek’s psychology.
Of course, that no way is the same as endorsing a Misesian methodology, which you seem to imply. And, furthermore, what makes Smith a Hayekian is what makes him at odds with Rothbard.
Grayson Lilburne, think you can handle it?
I know where you’ll go… “The physical sciences study non-human phenomena, but you wouldn’t describe a train stop as a movement of elementary particules, would you? You’d decide the motives and purpose action of the people present. QED.”
My big question: can Austrian economics, conceived as praxeology, be reformulated in purely positivistic terms?
Let me be plain: all patterns can be formalized mathematically; can Austrian economics conform to that? Quoting Rothbard, “Moreover, even if verbal economics could be successfully translated into mathematical sysmbols…” Can it?
You don’t believe Smith actually performs economically-related experiments that reveal insightful outcomes?
Astrology is more comparable to Austrian economics than to experimental studies, my friend.
You don’t believe Smith actually performs economically-related experiments that reveal insightful outcomes?
Insightful outcomes =/= economic theorising.
Astrology is more comparable to Austrian economics than to experimental studies, my friend.
No, considering it deals with predictions it’d find its sister “science” in positivist economics, ironically.
You don’t believe Smith actually performs economically-related experiments that reveal insightful outcomes?
Physics experiment also reveal insightful outcomes, but only if backed by solid mathematical reasoning.
I never said that he endorsed a Misesian methodology. Though, Vernon Smith most certainly is not a neoclassical so I still don’t see why you’re endorsing him.
What would you call his methodology?
How disapppointing!
In nearly an hour, all he did was make the same point repeatedly. He was right when, at the beginning, he stated that the audience members picked the wrong lecture.
Here is the argument made by the short-on-breath Long:
The debate on methodology has many threads; I can’t believe Long didn’t explore them (since I usually appreciate his thinking).
Let me pose a challenge to all of you (made originally by Bryan Caplan to Bob Murphy): Name any absolutely certain non-tautological claim about the economy, and I’ll be happy to wager a fractional penny against everything you’ll ever own - even if I think you’re almost certainly right.