Austrian economics on RTE!

[Hazlitt]

And that's fine (crazy, of course, but perfectly fine). The question, however, was why one would start with one set of axioms rather than some other. The answer, if I understand correctly, was something like the assertion that the claim 'all humans act' is indubitable. It was conceded that the claim 'I act' looks like it might be indubitable. It just isn't obvious how one gets from there to the stronger claim. Obviously, one could create an internally consistent system which included the basic axiom 'all humans can fly'. Why would one want to?

Well sorry no I disagree with your rejection of the claim that "humans act" haha. Can you explain to me how you can emprically prove that YOU act but not that OTHERS act ? Remember we have defined human action as purposeful behaviour.
[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

[Seos]

True and false. You can only know I am here through observable means, but that's not we're trying to prove. Assume I'm standing next to you. Now you argue with me. Why are you arguing with someone who is incapable of action. Crazy man!

If you're talking to yourself that must mean that you're the only human around. And guess what: you're still acting.

Yes I may be crazy. If I'm the only human around then my statement that "I act, but other humans don't" is true, so is your one that "all humans act" but only if I am the only human so it could only be used for a priori knowledge about only me and no other humans.

Hi Seos,

I understand what you are saying but I don't see how your question raises a problem or conflict for the Misesian school? Austrian economics openly claims to be a logical school of thought, not empirical - are you asking for empirical evidence that all humans act?

According to the Austrian school the statement that all humans act is an a-priori proposition: a proposition whose justification does not rely upon experience.
[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

And my point is that it is not a-priori, since this is what the Misesian school is built up from then it is a problem for the whole method of Austrian economics. It is possible for me to be the only acting human therefore it's possible that "all humans act" is false.

I think that people here are really missing the point. My point is that human action is NOT like sciences such as physics or chemistry. In the science of human action it is impossible to test conclusions.

The statement that all humans act is apodictically true.

I say to all who say that other humans do not act, this is not apodictically true. And if you disagree with that then prove me wrong.
[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

Back to square one I see. I'll bring the circle around.
You think statement that all humans act is true because in order to disprove it I just me not all humans, me the individual, (Can I put anymore focus on it just being me) must act. Because of this there is nothing contradictory about the statement:
"I act, other humans don't" it is just as apodictically true as the statement "all humans act".

Exactly, it doesn't need to be proved. It is an a-priori statement. Just like "humans act" is an a-priori statement. It does not rely on experience for justification.

Otherwise you would need to emperically show that the sequence of real numbers do not end and this cannot be done either. We have defined human action as purposeful behaviour, and by this definition we can conclude that as an a-priori statement this is undeniable. Otherwise of course you would have to prove that the sequence of real numbers do not end.... you may take a while
[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

Prove to me that ALICE doesn't act. (this is the same as the pen argument from earlier but it was too hard to leave prejudices aside in that case it seems)

I'm not trying to say a-priori statements are deniable that would be foolish because of the defintion, I am showing you that "all humans act" is not a-priori.

Ok that may not have been your goal, but it was certainly mine.

If you are saying that the statement "all humans act" is not unquestionable, I would disagree and say that it is.

So if you would like to post some empirical proof that no other humans other than you act, I await your reply.
.

please avoid triple negatives... but yes that is what I'm trying to argue

My belief is that the statement is "all humans act" is empirically true but not apodictically true.

[Hazlitt]

My belief is that the statement is "all humans act" is empirically true but not apodictically true.

Can you tell me how you can prove that only you act purposefully, does not the verification of your statement rely on other humans acting purposefully in order to verify your results ?
[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

[Christel]

Why is the "all" so important?
Wouldn't it suffice to say: "humans act", or "humans act, unless..."?
There are unfortunately humans who can't act, like those who are in a coma?
And why is the "humans" so important?

[Christel]

I haven't got it why it seems important to maintain that it's possible to say "I act - other humans don't".
But I wish to mention that no one could say "I act" about just him/herself without having learned a human language and the meaning of "to act" from other acting human beings.

[Seos]

I act in the sense that I employ scarce means over time to achieve ends. The pen does not.

Hang on you can't use that definition of acting because then even "I act" isn't apodicitically true. I can make statements without employing scarce means over time to achieve ends. Therefore I can say that "human's don't act" without acting (by that definition of the word act).

Can you tell me how you can prove that only you act purposefully, does not the verification of your statement rely on other humans acting purposefully in order to verify your results ?
[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

I cannot prove it without a doubt, I'd have to make assumptions which are themselves dubitable but I would be left with other people acting being the most reasonable option amongst others.

I haven't got it why it seems important to maintain that it's possible to say "I act - other humans don't".
But I wish to mention that no one could say "I act" about just him/herself without having learned a human language and the meaning of "to act" from other acting human beings.

If it's possible to say "I act, other humans don't" then that means "all humans act" isn't completely and unshakably true. Why that is important is because Austrian economics is built up from the statement "all humans act".

He/she could be saying I act in a language made by him/herself, it does mean that something outside the human must exist but not neccessarily an acting thing.

[Hazlitt]

I see absolutely no contradiction with the point you are making and the humans act axiom of austrian economics.

"The discipline of praxeology – as formulated by Ludwig von Mises – affirms the ability of the human rational faculty to deductively obtain certain knowledge about aspects of reality. The starting point of praxeology, the action axiom, is both irrefutable and ubiquitously manifested in reality. The action axiom thus serves as a link between observation and reason, allowing the latter to accurately systematize and gain true insight into the former. Praxeology repudiates all doctrines which seek to sever reason from reality and contend that certain, rational knowledge is impossible – including empiricism and historicism."

PRAXEOLOGY AND CERTAINTY OF KNOWLEDGE (1)
[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

[Hazlitt]

Why can't I say my pen acts? It can leak. It can fall off the table due to external forces. Unfortunately my pen does not have free will.

We have defined human action (not pen action may I add, this is seriously getting ridiculous) as purposeful human behaviour. Prove that your pen acts or that it does not have free will for that matter.

But maybe I am like my pen, only responding to external forces. Perhaps I only eat apples because I am told to by nerve impulses. Perhaps I do not have free will???

I will refer you to a post I have already made regarding this:

Conscious or purposeful behavior is in sharp contrast to unconscious behavior, i.e., the reflexes and the involuntary responses of the body’s cells and nerves to stimuli. People are sometimes prepared to believe that the boundaries between conscious behavior and the involuntary reaction of the forces operating within man’s body are more or less indefinite. This is correct only as far as it is sometimes not easy to establish whether concrete behavior is to be considered voluntary or involuntary. But the distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness is nonetheless sharp and can be clearly determined.

The unconscious behavior of the bodily organs and cells is for the acting ego no less a datum than any other fact of the external world. Acting man must take into account all that goes on within his own body as well as other data, e.g., the weather or the attitudes of his neighbors. There is, of course, a margin within which purposeful behavior has the power to neutralize the working of bodily factors. It is feasible within certain limits to get the body under control. Man can sometimes succeed through the power of his will in overcoming sickness, in compensating for the innate or acquired insufficiency of his physical constitution, or in suppressing reflexes. As far as this is possible, the field of purposeful action is extended. If a man abstains from controlling the involuntary reaction of cells and nerve centers, although he would be in a position to do so, his behavior is from our point of view purposeful.

Either way the axioms are articles of faith. They are starting points, just as the Nicene Creed is.

Again, you seem to miss the point. The science of economics, human action, cannot be verified by empirical evidence - it RELIES on logical thought processes ground in reasoning, therefore all we can assert by this is that it is the preferable method through which to study this social science, you cannot prove theories such as you can a physics theory in a laboratory. AGAIN:

"The discipline of praxeology – as formulated by Ludwig von Mises – affirms the ability of the human rational faculty to deductively obtain certain knowledge about aspects of reality. The starting point of praxeology, the action axiom, is both irrefutable and ubiquitously manifested in reality. The action axiom thus serves as a link between observation and reason, allowing the latter to accurately systematize and gain true insight into the former. Praxeology repudiates all doctrines which seek to sever reason from reality and contend that certain, rational knowledge is impossible – including empiricism and historicism."

Also, maybe we are all schizophrenic or live in some Matrix like bubble. In this case I know I act, but maybe others don't.

Obviously I don't believe that I live in the Matrix, but it just shows that Austrian economics starts with articles of faith.

We both know that we cannot prove that we don't live in a "Matrix-like bubble", but then again we have nothing to base that belief in. All this statement does to the argument that economics is not an empirical science is to back it up, it shows that economic theories CAN NOT be proven for certain in a laboratory. Why should we believe any results from empirical evidence in a "matrix-like" construct?

The article of faith that it is not groups that act leads to the deduction of things like belief in individualism and free markets.

There is a contradiction here, you cannot prove that groups act, and if neither individuals can be proven to act purposefully OR groups of individuals, then you cannot therefore refute the statement that NO HUMANS ACT. But this is nonsense, this is absurd! This statement is not based in reasoning.

I consider the use of falsification to be a core distinction between science and religion (whether maths is a science is a different question, but don't make me talk about Banach spaces and so on please).

I take your point and agree, but we cannot say that economics is a science, and that is the core of the question, in fact it is the only question! Economics is not verifiable the way physics or biology is, it is a synthetic a-priori field of logic. As Rothbard said:

Mathematical equations are appropriate and useful where there are constant quantitative relations among unmotivated variables; they are inappropriate in the field of conscious behavior.

This is the fundamental difference between Austrian and mathematical economists, the core distinction.

The equations of physics describe a process through time, while those of economics do not describe a process at all, but merely the final equilibrium point, a hypothetical situation that is outside of time and will never be reached in reality. Furthermore, they cannot say anything about the path by which the economy moves in the direction of the final equilibrium position. As there are no constant relations between any of the elements which the science of action studies, there is no measurement possible, and all numerical data available have merely a historical character; they belong to economic history and not to economics as such. The positivist slogan, "science is measurement," in no way refers to the sciences of human action; the claims of "econometrics" are vain.

[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

[Seos]

I see absolutely no contradiction with the point you are making and the humans act axiom of austrian economics.

"The discipline of praxeology – as formulated by Ludwig von Mises – affirms the ability of the human rational faculty to deductively obtain certain knowledge about aspects of reality. The starting point of praxeology, the action axiom, is both irrefutable and ubiquitously manifested in reality. The action axiom thus serves as a link between observation and reason, allowing the latter to accurately systematize and gain true insight into the former. Praxeology repudiates all doctrines which seek to sever reason from reality and contend that certain, rational knowledge is impossible – including empiricism and historicism."

PRAXEOLOGY AND CERTAINTY OF KNOWLEDGE (1)
[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

That just repeats what you've been saying.

the action axiom is both irrefutable and ubiquitously manifested in reality.

That is what this is about.
I'll go through it all again!

Right:
The action axiom states: "humans act"

This is considered irrefutable because humans must act if they wish to refute it, this is the only reason it is considered irrefutable.

So, if it is false that all humans must act to refute it then the statement "humans act" is merely a reasonable but refutable and dubitable starting point. A consequence of this is that all of austrian economics should be open to falsification.

So we know that the opposite claim that "no humans act" is false because a human must act in stating that. "No humans act" is similar to the statement "everything I say is a lie".

However the claim "I act but other humans don't" or "I act but other humans may not" is not neccessarily false. This is because only the "I" is acting in stating this position.
This would be like saying "everthing I say, except this statement, is a lie", so this statement is a possible.

The fact that the statement "I act but other humans may not" is true means that the axiom "all humans act" may not be true, this means it is not irrefutable or neccessarily "ubiquitously manifested in reality".

[Seos]

The equations of physics describe a process through time, while those of economics do not describe a process at all, but merely the final equilibrium point, a hypothetical situation that is outside of time and will never be reached in reality.

Absolute zero? Perfect vacum? Infinity?.