Praxeology: Value-Free Analysis in Social Science

Economics Economics Questions
1

I keep seeing questions arise from various posters about the concepts of Austrian Economics, that contain in them a built-in misunderstanding of the value-free nature of Austrian Economics. When the Marxist posts, he argues that it’s an apology or an ideology that intends (a purpose) to explain the ‘evils’ of capitalism as if to justify their existence.

Basically, “this phenomena occurs, and it’s ‘bad’, therefore because Austrian Economics explains it, Austrian Economics must be wrong.”

But this approach misunderstands the role of theory in any field of science. When we create techniques and technology we use theory and we apply it to achieve goals. We construct such tech to enable us to achieve ends we may not have been able to achieve, or to achieve them in a more efficient (less time and resources) manner.

The second role of theory is to explain or understand the phenomena of history. But not liking the interpretation of history that a theory provides isn’t the means by which we determine whether or not to use the theory. We use a theory because of it’s accuracy in explaining and predicting the phenomena we see.

I don’t use Austrian Economics because it makes Capitalism good, or Socialism bad. I use Austrian Economics because it accurately explains and predicts the institutions and behaviors we see in the real world. When we say that Marxism is bad theory, it’s not because we don’t like it’s interpretation of history. It’s because it’s inaccurate and/or incomplete in it’s explanation of existing phenomena and it’s incapable of predicting real world events or effects.

Let’s look at geometry, logic, and mathematics in particular. They are peer sciences of Praxeology in that they are entirely theoretical, and their application to the real world isn’t because of the existence of those concepts in the real world itself but are derived from the way in which the human brain perceives and interprets the world. Geometry is accurate, not because the world is in fact 3-dimensional, or because angles (in degrees) exist in the world, it’s because when we use the theorems of geometry we are able to accurately interpret and predict specific phenomena in the world.

Mathematics, the quantification of phenomena in the world, is also accurate, because in applying it to the world, we are able to accurately interpret historical phenomena and predict future outcomes.

The confusing part in social science is that teleology contains within it’s definition the primordial root of value. By definition to have an intention requires choosing to pursue a specific change in reality which would not have happened if the action had not occured. To have purpose is to want the world to conform in some way to the individuals desires. This valuing, preferring, choosing, intending aspect of humanity is the essential core property behind any social science, and it manifests itself in our language in normativity.

So, we judge theory on it’s accuracy. That is the value of theory. Normativity and intention preceed knowledge… But that doesn’t change the truth of a theory, it only explains why the theory exists.

This recursiveness of valuing and truth-bearing is confusing and is difficult to divide. Thus any social scientist in examining the behavior of man, will constantly have to fight to remember which side of the line he’s on in his analysis. Is he judging the outcomes? Or is he explaining them? Is he judging the effects predicted? Or verifying the effects predicted? In the theory seek truth, in the technology seek whatever end you desire, but if the technology cannot produce the desired outcome, or is NOT POSSIBLE based on theory, then accept that truth also. Seek to attain your personal or even “collective” goals in ways which are compatible with truth.

To attack Praxeology you must attack either our desire for truth, or establish that it is not true. I’d hope that we would all realize that if one attacks truth, then it’s not simply social science that would be undone, but theory itself. And this cannot actually work, the fact that we create and use technology in any of man’s endeavors is the pragmatic proof of knowledge (and it’s truth value), else there would be no application of knowledge in reality.

Stop attacking the outcomes as bad that it explains and predicts. We don’t like oppression, or exploitation, or interference, or the inability of any man to seek and attain any end his heart desires. But we aren’t trying to solve these problems by proposing social technology which cannot remove those issues from social life. If you don’t like the outcomes that occur, use the theorems of praxeology to engage in actions that bring about technologies that will work, that fit your desired outcomes (socialist society, etc.)

2

Well put.

You might add a little blurb on exactly what the praxeological method itself is, that is its very methodology, and exactly why this is so relevant in a society consisting of individualistic human beings, because I doubt that most Marxists, even the ones running around on the Marxist thread recently, really understand the method. The problem is exactly that Marx’s method is really quite enticing and… Addictive if you just read him without a whole heap of skepticism.

3

Thanks,

In another post I’ll try to explain and defend the methods of praxeology, but first I’d like to add one other reductio ad absurdum argument about the misuse in theory and in technology of any ideas that fit in the following categories: equilibrium, equality, uniformity, egality, etc.

I’m struggling to figure out how to explain this. Think of it as the line between compare and contrast. For example, when we examine stars through astronomy and astrophysics, we find that there is a regularity in that though they are not identical they conform to a set of natural laws which explain the wide range of behaviors, life-cycle and other phenomena that we observe about them.

However, each is unique and different. Why is there a lack of uniform distribution of matter and energy in the universe? I’ve read about some simulations of the big bang, and given even a slight irregularity in the initial distribution of matter in the univers, the entire observable universe rapidly begins to appear. But if the initial distribution is perfectly even, then one must introduce some perturbation to the fabric of the universe in order to cause change to exhibit itself.

Think now of weather systems. As water vapor collects in the air through evaporation, the system begins to saturate. At some point rain droplets begin to form. But this condensation requires some seed particle to happen, and the raindrops form, and the rain falls to the earth. This uneven distribution of matter and energy is the driver of all change.

My point in these examples is that dynamic systems are predicated on a lack of uniformity, unequal air pressure, unequal air temperatures, differences in mass and gravitational pull, differences in environement affects speciation in evolution. The two confusingly diametrically opposed truths about reality are that the universe operates on fundamental and unchanging laws (thus we can apprehend and predict phenomena) and the universe is absolutely chaotic and uneven or irregular and must be in order to refer to it as dynamic and changing.

The same will be true in the social life of man. Seeking evenness, equilibrium, stability in the phenomena of the world is not a realistic goal. It cannot happen, there will always be uneven results, uneven ability, uneven distribution of wealth, uneven distribution of power. But just like every other technology we create and employ, the job of theory is to explain HOW the inequalities work, and what phenomena arises out of it.

All technology is used to achieve goals. If you want to provide optimal health to every man on earth, then use social technology that is possible. You can’t force every man to engage in healthy behaviors, and you can’t force men to provide health care. You can’t force men to develop new medical/health technology. You can’t force a man to provide a service he can’t make a profit from. The reason a man does a thing is because he wants to, this core truth about reality is the essential fact that drives the socially valued concept of political and economic freedom.

The things a man chooses from are those that are available. Forcing a behavior from any man, reduces the behaviors available to all men. We need to embrace and work with the dynamic nature of the social life of mankind, just as we embrace and work with the dynamic nature of biology in our agriculture, and the dynamic nature of atomic phenomena in our electronics, etc., etc.

4

In other words, egalitarian results economically and politically are not actually possible. So work within a theoretical framework that is accurate to find ways to raise the bottom, by reducing social friction, not by increasing it through the use of power/conflict.

The key feature of conflict is friction, it wastes energy. Rapid and predictable resolutions result in higher efficiency. Cooperation in social interaction reduces friction, it allows wealth to flow freely and naturally.