Unfortunately the poster has blocked comments, but he in a nutshell(for those who don’t want to sit through the video) that because Austrian economics relies on deductive reasoning it is an pre-scientific school of economics that belongs in the dustbin of history. The poster/narrator criticizes the Austrian school for not using data and instead relying on rationalism, which he claims went by the wayside in around the 18th century. He also criticizes the deductive reasoning of the Austrians as ‘pre-scientific’ and ends the video by saying that if the Austrians were indeed correct they would become well-known overnight.
He’s not caught up on contemporary philosophy. In the late 19th century, the trend in philosophy was against the rationalists. That only lasted for a while, and now the philosophy ball is back in their court. These things take time to trickle into other areas of study. I forget the name of the group of philosophers that were against the rationalists, but I’m pretty sure their work branched off from the empiricists.
Either way, he’s attacking AE for using logic by using logic. And in action and in essence, attacking logic.
If by the scientific method he means logical positivism, then correct. But Austrian economics isn’t detached from the real world as it does involve data. Sounds like he might not know his own theory.
theory is how reality is known. theory is thought. Is he saying he doesn’t think, in other words, doesn’t realize data? you get my drift.
lol
propositions of deductive reasoning are prior to naming, meaning, the propositions are of the real world (external and internal) and then premised with conclusions in order to discover implications between the propositions. Those propositions occur due to evidential data and axioms. that is what finding truth is about.
"This video is bogus. In the spirit of the internet, I have re-posted it to allow comments and ratings… as naturally the origional video would have been 1 rated and tarnished with truth. Please rate this video as you see fit (1) and comment accordingly.
The Scientific method is the proper epistemology for the natural sciences, but not the social sciences. To find out why; read:
Remember, the Austrian School of Economics was the only school of thought that has consistently predicted every crisis in this country over the last century. Why? Because it has the right methodology."
He makes the faulty assumption that praxeology & economics and the physical sciences must attain their axioms via the same method. Like others have said, the former’s are already known before the fact. The axioms and its propositions deduced are tested by the laws of logic; they are universal and they are apodictically true. The latter’s axioms can’t be reached the same way. They have to hypothesize, isolate factors, experiment, and so on. With his dismissal of logic, it isn’t surprising he concludes with a fallacy ( “if the Austrians were indeed correct they would become well-known overnight”).
I saw this long ago. He is an imbecile making the usual argument heard from the less refined socialists, the attempt to liken AE to religious faith. It is a complete lack of understanding of religion as much as science. Faith is belief based on preference, not belief based on poor method.