Has someone written a refutation of neoclassical/empirical/mathematic economics?
Along the lines of unrealistic assumptions, uncontrollable experiments, using physics as a model, etc.
Unless you understand the Compound Interest Paradox or “Taxation is theft!”, you don’t really understand economics. I also wrote a series of posts on the Black-Scholes formula that is popular.
Yes, Mises and Hoppe have substantial writings on the topic. Other authors like Guido Hulsmann and Huerta de Soto have also written on the topic. Martin Hollis has a great book called Rational Economic Man which severely challenges the foundations of positivist economics. The praxeology reading list has a lot of sources under the methodology section.
-Jon
Has anyone actually set out to disprove neoclassicism once and for all, and succeed?
If you believe “neoclassical economics”, then you probably believe “all truth is relative”. If you believe all ideas are equally valid, then it’s impossible to disprove anything.
The authors I mentioned would be the best placed to do so, and have done so (as well as Garrison, William Barnett II, Block, Rothbard, Kirzner and Reisman in the case of specific theories and Long and Gordon on methodology.) But keep in mind Austrians do not reject all of neoclassicism. Just its foundations and many parts of it.
-Jon