>>24562550
>What the fuck are you talking about?
>The foundation of "Austrian" economics is about choice, they contend that individuals make choices, collectives do not
Which is derived from the axiom of human action, using deductive logic. As opposed to all other economic schools which use mathematical models based on empirical data. Murray rothbard says the following...
>Praxeology rests on the fundamental axiom that individual human beings act, that is, on the primordial fact that individuals engage in conscious actions toward chosen goals. This concept of action contrasts to purely reflexive, or knee-jerk, behavior, which is not directed toward goals. The praxeological method spins out by verbal deduction the logical implications of that primordial fact. In short, praxeological economics is the structure of logical implications of the fact that individuals act.
Also...
>There are, then, two parts of this axiomatic-deductive method: the process of deduction and the epistemological status of the axioms themselves. First, there is the process of deduction; why are the means verbal rather than mathematical logic?5 Without setting forth the comprehensive Austrian case against mathematical economics, one point can immediately be made: let the reader take the implications of the concept of action as developed so far in this paper and try to place them in mathematical form. And even if that could be done, what would have been accomplished except a drastic loss in meaning at each step of the deductive process? Mathematical logic is appropriate to physics — the science that has become the model science, which modern positivists and empiricists believe all other social and physical sciences should emulate. In physics the axioms and therefore the deductions are in themselves purely formal and only acquire meaning “operationally” insofar as they can explain and predict given facts. On the contrary, in praxeology, in the analysis of human action, the axioms themselves are known to be true and meaningful. As a result, each verbal step-by-step deduction is also true and meaningful; for it is the great quality of verbal propositions that each one is meaningful, whereas mathematical symbols are not meaningful in themselves.
Seems that I understand the Austrian method better than you do.
>>24562553
You also said...
>Irrefutable statements are usually fundamentally wrong or entirely unconnected to the world.
A is A is an irrefutable statement, so you must believe that it's wrong. That was the statement I was responding to. Not your grammar correction.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

Any good books that rebut this book, point by point?After reading about dialectic I'm also wondering if it's a common thing for a book…

Any good books that rebut this book, point by point?
After reading about dialectic I'm also wondering if it's a common thing for a book…