I think Austrians should be able to get on board with Bill Gaede’s view point on physics pretty easily, there are many parellels in terms of the epistemic structuring of both.
Mises talked about a methodological dualism in HA, but I think this is incorrect. Physics is also an a priori science, in that the theories are not based upon empirical evidence, but rather are based upon some definition of existence. In praxeology you start with the existence of human action, ie, the concept of deliberate action. Economists in other schools, whether explicitly or implicitly, make use of this concept, albeit usually very inconsistently and without fully laying it out. The Austrians just decided to be rational and consistent, and voila, everything started to fall into place. Economic data requires economic theory in order to interpret it. Why should this be any less true for physical data?
So I believe all Bill Gaede is saying, and I agree with him, is that physicists should be rational and consistent. Every single quantity ever written down in the entire history of physics requires the use of shape as a definition for objects in order to make sense of the meaning of the number. Whether it be a relationship between the unit of measurement and that which is being measured, and/or a story about the measurement and measuring devices, shape is ALWAYS brought in as if it is something real in order to make sense of the quantity. There are always different possible physical interpretations for quantities. Velocity, for example, m/s, could apply to different physical scenarios, like the velocity of a particle, or of the propogation of a wave, etc. Quantities, measurements, experiments, etc., all require using shape as a definition for objects, and all require that this be done a priori in order to even have the means of interpreting the data. One cannot even begin to draw conclusions from empirical data without at least implicitly using shape as a definition for objects.
However, what happens all the time, something that is pervasive in all of physics, is reification. Shape is implicitly used as a definition for an object in order to understand a quantity, and then the quantity is reified into a different shape. In essence, a conceptual relationship between objects defined by their shape is then transformed into an object. Some examples would be charge, energy, field, etc. These are understood relationships between objects which are routinely converted into objects.
It gets worse once you start getting into modern physics. Now you have notions like bending of space, 4D space-time, virtual particles, black holes, wave-particle duality, wave-packets, zero dimensional particles, 1D strings, 11 dimensions, etc. These are all irrational (ie, they are inconceivable and thus not open to logical analysis). The problem is that, understandably, physicists are reticent to predefine anything b/c they don’t want the artificiality of the human mind interfering with the pursuit of truth. The problem is that truth is a concept which belongs to religion. In engaging in measurements and experiments physicists already implicitly presuppose the validity of shape as the definition for objects. They shoud just do so consistently. I’m not trying to say that spooky, weird stuff like black holes and bending of space are impossible, but that the human mind cannot even make sense of those words, so it is useless to introduce them in a scientific theory as if they might be real or as if they can explain observations. Physics is about explaining consummated events using a theory about physical objects (and explanation must “make sense” within the context of the human logical construct, or it cannot be called “explanation”). The whole theory can be developed without ever doing a single experiment or making a single measurement. All one must do is first hypothesize the objects involved in the theory by detailing their shape, relationship to one another, and the definitions being used, and then theorize as to the rules which govern the behavior of the objects. These are all assumptions taken at face value, and if the theory is rational (ie, conceivable), then all you have to do for explanation is be consistent with the rules laid out and the shapes hypothesized. The explanation can be logically deduced. Now once you are consistent you can go about interpreting observations, experiments, measurements, etc. Which theory is “true” is a matter of scienfitic opinion. The real question is which one do you think best explains consummated events.
It seems to be unavoidable that shape is the basic fabric of the science of physics just as human action is the fabric of praxeology and economics. It is the meat, it is something which is going to apply in every conceivable consummated event under study. Its validity is presupposed in the very act of engaging in the science, empirical data cannot be interpreted w/o it, and explanation requires it.
There seem to be two main objections. One, that this is artificial, but if shape and location as a definition for existence is artificial then so is all of physics as we know it. Physicists implicitly use shape as a definition for objects in every quantity and equation. Two, that how can this be considering the overwhelming success of physics in developing technology? Mathematics can be used to describe, but not explain. In economics mathematics was recognized by Austrians as not having any explanatory power, probably because of the overwhelming complexities involved in trying to model human behavior. In physics however, mathematical equations can be used to predict hypothetical measurements with a great degree of accuracy, and such experiments are repeatable. However, there are different possible physical interpretations for any given quantity, measurement, or experiment. You can’t prove a physical interpretation with an experiment, the physical model is presupposed as part of the theory in order to interpret the experiment itself so that conclusions can be drawn.
Just look at Newton’s law of gravitation. The equation can get the numbers right consistently, but Newton said himself that he framed no hypotheses as to the causal explanation for gravity. Equations are just mathematical functions relating hypothetical measurements (wherein every variable represents a quantity). They say nothing about causation. When I bring this example up people usually point out anomalies where Newton’s equations don’t get the numbers right, or isn’t as accurate as Einstein’s GR, but then I could easily point out areas where Einstein’s GR doesn’t get the numbers right, such as in the case of the “mysterious force,” as NASA dubbed it, acting on the Voyagers. Just look at how physicists hypothesized “dark matter” when GR said the galaxies should fly apart considering their mass and angular velocity. Equations are supposed to be falsifiable under the current paradigm, but instead new entities are introduced in order to make sure the equations remain in tact (you all understand the establishment effect). Now we have “dark energy” to in order to “explain” the accelerating expansion of the universe.
Just because an equation can get the numbers right does not at all mean that the physical interpretation is correct, and certainly not proven. The empiricist method can be very useful, and can formulate equations which predict measurements with a striking degree of accuracy, but this is simply not explanation, it is a description of hypothetical measurements. In order to have explanation the entire theory has to be laid out and stuck to consistently prior to any experiment or measurement. Hell, observations, measurements, and experiments can even be used to develop a theory, but the important part is that at the time of the presentation of your theory, no one gives a crap about how you came up with it, you just present the objects, defintions, intial scene, and the rules. These are all taken at face value and the explanation deduced. Then it is up to every individual to decide which theory best explains the world around us.
Okay, that seems to be the gist of it. Feel free to reply if you are interested because I think of all people Austrians will be able to see this most clearly.