Praxeology: The Austrian Method | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[afaultytoaster]

why do austrians feel they are qualified to make pronouncements about areas of academia far outside their own expertise? 20:00 he says that matter can't be in two places at once. the double-slit experiment proves him wrong.

[jaeLAX23]

@afaultytoaster Why do you feel you can?

Matter has both particle & wave-like properties, but electrons have more wave-like character than particle character which allow electrons to behave this way. You and I cannot be in two places at once.

[afaultytoaster]

@jaeLAX23 how did you come by this information? did you arrive at it by a priori reasoning or by empiricism?

[jaeLAX23]

@afaultytoaster Anyone who's taken at the very least a serious high school physics class knows this. It's also in your 2nd semester college physics course ;D

[afaultytoaster]

@jaeLAX23 that's right, empiricism

[jaeLAX23]

@afaultytoaster How does that relate to your questioning his ability to talk about other sciences? You're useless talking to, my time is too precious.

[tonygmilan7]

this man is a legend

[ChrisRhenfeldt]

this presentation is just illuminating

BRAVO

[05121784]

Absolutely nothing about Hoppe's presentation can be attributed to Kant. Precisely the opposite. Hoppe merely illustrates that we are able acquire knowledge through reasoning. Kant is the evil opponent of reasoning. Ayn Rand has written beautifully to inform.

[SirJamestheIII]

@05121784 your comment has more to do with Rand being wrong in her methodology rather than Hoppe not being Kantian influenced. Hoppe was a student of Jurgen Habermas who resonated strongly with neo-kantian epistemology. Hoppe was a marxist then, but was converted to capitalism by Friedman, but he still held strongly to the methodology taught by Habermas. He found Mises and he was then satisfied.

[zsignal]

@IvanTheHeathen

From the standpoint of logical positivism, you are correct, it would be considered analytic, not synthetic.

[IvanTheHeathen]

@zsignal Yes, I realize that, but that's not the point. From the standpoint of someone who believes he's the king of Spain the statement "You are the king of Spain" is correct, but that doesn't mean he really IS the king of Spain. I'm asking about who is correct. As for your other comment: yes, Hoppe's epistemological points are Kantian. However, I think Kant would say the example I gave is synthetic because Kant believed we have an a priori intuition of space, which that statement presupposes.

[CytherLynx]

Austrian Economics > Keynesian economics

[93msinclair]

@CytherLynx Keynsian economics is not economics at all.

[CytherLynx]

@93msinclair haha too true... its like how intelligent design is not a science, and yet they put themselves above evolutionists. sometimes it's good to just play along with them until they realise. :P

[93msinclair]

@CytherLynx lol yes. Unfortunately though, the Keynsianism is more popular with control freaks than Austrian economics and hence it will be legitamised by the government and corporate media. Most people will just accept Keynsianism because of normalcy bias but if they're open to the truth they can hardly be convinced by the Keynsian argument over the Austrian argument.

[IvanTheHeathen]

Though I am sympathetic to Hoppe's overall point, I consider some of the examples he gives of statements that are true a priori (require no experience/testing) and are synthetic (describe the real world) to be weak and improper. Take, for example, "No object can be both completely red and completely blue at the same time." Though this may describe objects in the real world, that does not make the statement synthetic. Is not the truth of that statement implied in the definition of "completely"?

[zsignal]

@IvanTheHeathen

From reading Hoppe's "Economic Science and the Austrian Method," it seems his praxeological method is highly influenced by Kant. From a Kantian perspective, synthetic a priori propositions are where the predicate concept is not contained in the subject concept. According Kant, it would be neither synthetic or analytic.

The definition of "describes the real world" is more similar to Quinne's definition in "Two Dogmas of Empiricism."

[echatav]

I do not understand his examples. For instance, he refers to a number of statements about Euclidean geometry as being about the real world and being obviously true. They are true statements in Euclidean geometry. But, that Euclidean geometry describes reality is still an empirical statement, no? In fact, it's false! Locally, spacetime is described by flat Minkowski geometry, and globally it's curved!

[SpockisGreat]

@echatav thank you, I was about to say the exact same thing but you said it better.

[synestheticmonotony]

@echatav Are we talking about curves, or are we talking about vectors? I would posit that the subject matter is with regard to vectors. I am sure that you understand that Minkowski's space geometry is based upon observation, primarily one that is setting upon a sphere (as was that of Einstein). However, within the context at hand, Euclidian geometry can be an empirical statement while also being a priori. But, it is originally a priori, with empiricist methods acting as a reinforcement.

[echatav]

@synestheticmonotony We're talking about two different statements here. The first is that in Euclidean geometry some properties hold, such as the shortest distance between two points is a line. The second is that Euclidean geometry describes reality. The first is an a priori statement, not empirical at all. The second is an empirical statement, not a priori at all. That Euclidean geometry doesn't actually describe the real world is besides the point. You're right, we may substitute Minkowski.

[synestheticmonotony]

@echatav Did Minkowski calculate his hypothesis utilizing torsion?

[echatav]

@synestheticmonotony I'm not sure I understand this question or your earlier question about curves or vectors. Minkowski provided a mathematical formalism for Einstein's special theory of relativity. His famous quote is "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." Consult wikipedia for the precise details about it.

[synestheticmonotony]

@echatav I'm not going to get too deep here; but, a vector under torque will produce a curve.  This is also true when the observer is experiencing natural phenomena setting upon a sphere under torque. Something that has been missing from most astrophysics and astronomy... Everything is twisting, not static. Space-time in the Relativity sense is missing a few things (i.e. the basics). I am guessing that he assumed far too much on his readers' knowledge, and they just simply forgot it.

[echatav]

@synestheticmonotony Hi, this is probably an inappropriate place to get into an extended discussion of physics.

[24Cenac]

I think he made his point: the positvist got the logical statements wrong. On this basis, without experiment, we can have apriori knowledge of the world. It is a Kantian hunch, but the positivist accepted the Humean legacy without restraint.

[ostralopithicus]

The statements he gives as examples he claims are proof of the error of the Logical Positivists are in fact definitions. And it is true that any definition is as good as another - but only when they are first made! We as humans don't determine the validity of definitions, Nature and the market interaction does. This is called natural selection. The successful definition maintains itself in the lexicon by right of survival, not reason, nor empirical verification. Logical Positivism is correct.

[TheSophist2007]

@ostralopithicus true, I thought all the statements could be derived from hypothesis, they are logical generalisations from hypothetical statments.

The question is whether the original hypothesis are observeable or apriori

[ostralopithicus]

his attack on the logical positivists isn't justified by his examples, in which he states relations between things that are properties of the objects/things. So when he says no thing can be in two places at once - it is built into the 'definition' of any single thing that it resides on one place. That is why they are self-evident. They are not empirical statements. All of his examples are like this.

[totustuus11]

This was my favorite lecture of the week at Mises U. Hoppe is an amazing intellectual, astute and well-spoken. He and Walter Block have had a profound effect on the way I think about society, exchange, research, etc. As a repentant sociologist, I had to reevaluate my very approach to life, casting off the "fetters of iron" of empiricism and mulling over the praxeology of Mises and the "synthetic a priori" propositions of Kant. It was mentally revolutionary, and I'm still in recovery.

[KraljevicPavle]

Cool story bro

[IndepIntel]

Although I am an Austrian economist myself, I have to point out a flaw in Hoppe's statement that no object can occupy multiple places at the same time. Quantum physics has proven this statement to be false. In other words, a single object can occupy multiple places at the same time.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

Only in the quantum world.

[cpx86]

Not quite. As I understand it, quantum physics posits that a particle's position has a probability field. That is, it's position can never be exactly known, only the probability of it's existence in a given space.

[JamesRRedford]

That's not what quantum mechanics states. You're thinking of quantum superposition, which is a statistical uncertainty as to what states a particle can occupy. All possible states are realized in the multiverse, but each state in its own universe. For more on this, see David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997). Prof. Deutsch is the inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device.

[Lingerfoot]

Sir, is this Austrian economics like Peter Schiff studies? Peace!

[FCmagic01]

Yeah, it is.

[032125]

@Lingerfoot Yep.

[Leoninmiami]

WOW he is tackling perhaps the toughest question around. Does objective knowledge exist? Necessarily, if one answers no to this question, you destroy all existence. Think about it...for a while. Similar to the classic, "if a tree falls in the middle of a forest". Question, For those subjectivists or positivists ... I'll ask this ... Does human life require sustenance?

[thomasnolanearnshaw]

This man should be better known.

[joeseth05]

20:37:

"A straight line is the shortest distance between 2 points"

From a mathematical point of view, this is generally only true in certain (euclidean) spaces, but not all ones.

And in reality, this is also not always true, because this hypothesis became refuted by experiments supporting the theory of general relativity, which states that the shortest distance between 2 points is a geodesic, not necessarily a line.

[TracyII77]

Wrong again. A geodesic is the shortest distance between two points in curved space. So for instance, if I refer to two points on a ball, a geodesic would be the shortest distance between the two following along the surface of that ball. It is not the shortest distance overall, as that would be a straight line thru the ball. Geodesics are used in general relativity due to behavioral patterns of quantum particles, not mere existence. You seem to have the two confused.

[joeseth05]

You are right that a geodesic refers to the shortest path between 2 points on a surface.

According to general relativity, space-time is also a surface(of a higher dimensional space-time) that can be curved(gravitational field) itself under the influence of mass-energy, so the overall shortest distance between 2 points in space-time is a geodesic too and not a line(if some mass-energy is actually present).

And what do you mean by "behavioral patterns of quantum particles"?

[joeseth05]

Especially in economics, one needs to perceive space, time and causality to make mathematical models(or rather to test them against the perceptions), so I think that economic statements are at least partially transcendental - and I agree with the author that there is at least a third category of statements besides purely analytical or empirical ones(even though his proof is a little fishy), namely the Kantian transcendental category.

[joeseth05]

Chances are that you get wrong results(like the keynesian), than your model doesn't describe reality well enough or your input data is wrong, but that's NEVER the fault of mathematics. In the case of the keynesians, I think they screwed up their models and neglected necessary perceptions.

[joeseth05]

To make economic statements, 1 should make mathematical models translatable to and falsifiable by reality, and not mere single hypothesises testing, I agree with the author on that. The mathematics of these models themselves are purely analytic, even though one needs to interpret the results of the model in the context of reality.

[joeseth05]

person B always just means the person B, and not a group.

if _person A_ (is part of the friends of) _person B_

and _person B_ (is part of the friends of) _person C_,

then _person A_ (is part of the friends of) _person C_ or not _person A_ (is part of the friends of) _person C_.

(is part of the friends of) is an intransitive relation between 2 elements of the same type _person_.

[TracyII77]

You just introduced two variables that were not a part of the original logic statement. "Person B" is not the same as "the group of friends of Person B". Person B can exist without the group of friends, and the group of friends can exist without Person B. They are two different concepts, two different variables. So no matter how you try to rewrite your example, it is flat out wrong.

[DunbarConfederalist]

popperism is popular

[overmind25]

come unto stickam

[joeseth05]

I'm a little unhappy with your definition of the term "analytical statement" that states that analytical statements are just definitions.

While I agree that every analytical statement depends on definitions, which are essential, they may also be statements derived from definitions.

[joeseth05]

4)

21:56

> "If A is part of B, and B is part of C,

> than A is part of C also"

> A real statement about real things

This is true for transitive relations, but not every relation is transitive. There are counterexamples in both math and real world:

if person A is part of the group of frinds of person B and person B is part of the group of friends of person C, than person A is not necessarily part of the group of friends of C.

[TracyII77]

False.

Your example is bad, because you defined B as two separate variables: "Person B" and "group of friends". Which one is it?

[joeseth05]

You're right, I screwed up the example and it is not clear what I actually meant. Here's another example:

if person A is part of the friends of person B

and person B is part of the friends of person C,

then person A is not necessarily part of the friends of person C.

[TracyII77]

You repeated the same exact mistake. You cannot claim that B represents both a person and a group of people.

[joeseth05]

I don't claim that person B both represents a person and a group. All I claim about person B is that person B has friends

[TracyII77]

And those friends represent an entirely different variable. So when the logic statement says, If A is a part of B, and B is a part of C, then A is a part of C, still holds true. You cannot falsify the statement by introducing nonexistent variables. When you state that person A is a part of a "group of friends", that group of friends relate to variable B in the logic statement., not "person B". Person B is mutually exclusive of "the group of friends" and is in fact your D variable.

[joeseth05]

If you define: green := reflects light around 520nm

and yellow := reflects light around 570nm, than an object actually CAN be green and yellow all around at the same time.

[TracyII77]

False.

If two wavelengths meet at the same point and time, they interfere with each and create a whole new wavelength which is the product of the previous two.

[joeseth05]

You're right, I was wrong too. As a result of the beat interference of both light waves, you'll get ~544nm yellowy-green colored and ~5930nm infra-red light waves.

One will get a varying degree of the original 2 colors green and yellow to the yellowy-green and infra-red ones, due to a varying degree of partial beat interferences due to different materials(polarization etc).

[joeseth05]

not taking into account effects on semi-transparent or more complex materials.

[joeseth05]

3)

21:23

> "Whichever object is green all over cannot be

> yellow all over at the same time"

> It strikes me that this says something about

> the real world.

One actually need a definition of what "green" and "yellow" mean and their interactions in order to make implications to the real world from this statement, so the statement doesn't work all alone without further premises.

[joeseth05]

2)

20:37

> "A straight line is the shortest distance between 2 points"

this is true in some mathematical spaces, but this is not a scientific hypothesis, because it isn't scientific, because neither of both terms "straight line" and "point" are real world objects: they are transcendental concepts: those are required to grasp the real world in the first place, even though they themselves are imaginary and not part of the real world.

[TracyII77]

They are not transcendental concepts.

Fact: Points and straight lines are measured everyday in real world manufacturing environments.

[joeseth05]

There are real things that have an approximated shape of a point or a straight line, but the concepts themselves don't exist as real things.

Acording to Immanuel Kant, space is a category that must be known a priori to any sensation in order to perceive it spatially. This category is neither sensational nor purely analytic(because it's required to grasp some sensations), so it builds a bridge between the 2 - transcendental.

And I guess a straight line and a point are subcategories of space.

[TracyII77]

They do exist as real things. The measurements of them are what are approximate. For instance, if I only have a standard grade school ruler, I can only approximate the distance of a micron. But with electronic measurement equipment, I can verify the distance of a micron. Points and straight lines do exist. They are more than just mere concepts.

[joeseth05]

It is even physically impossible to verify distances distances arbitrarily precise, because at last at the plank scale, the heisenberg uncertainty principle kicks in, meaning that if your object must not move more than a certain momentum(dp < constant) in order to be measured, than its location cannot also be measured with arbitrarily precise(dx < constant). Thus, one can't even measure exact lenght or width which would be required to check for straight lines/points in reality.

[TracyII77]

Just because they can't be measured, on an exact scale, does not mean they don't exist. At ant given moment in time, a set of electrons can be lined up just so as to produce a straight line. At any given moment in time and space there exists a point, in fact an infinite number of points. You are stuck on the idea that life only exists based on what you can measure and comprehend. There is more to life than meets the eye.

[joeseth05]

>Just because they can't be measured, on an exact

>scale, does not mean they don't exist.

by existing as a real thing, I mean it exists as a physical thing which could be perceived sensationally.

If one has a transcendental a priori concept of a straight line in ones mind, then it actually does exist in ones mind, but not necessarily as a physical sensational thing.

So it also depends how you define the word "to exist", maybe I was a bit unclear on that.

[TracyII77]

You are full of it. Straight lines and points DO exist physically. The ONLY proof that you have stated to the contrary is that it has not been "perceived", or may specifically stated, not been measured. If I have as yet to perceive a certain John Smith in Cincinnati, it does not posit that he doesn't exist physically. That is just stupid.

[joeseth05]

If you have as yet to perceive a certain John Smith in Cincinnati, it does not posit that he does exist physically either.

[joeseth05]

>Straight lines and points DO exist physically.

I seriously don't believe this, and I can't neither prove nor disprove it.

[joeseth05]

>At ant given moment in time, a set of electrons can

>be lined up just so as to produce a straight line.

If that would actually be possible, then it would be a straight alignment of electrons, and not an actual straight line. the concept of a straight line could be perceived by your mind(compared against) when it receives the sensation of a straight alignment of electrons.

[joeseth05]

>There is more to life than meets the eye.

I think this is true. There are all kinds of abstract structural and informational concepts in reality, even though these concepts do not physically exist.

[joeseth05]

but due to quantum theory, all physical things don't have exact precise borders, every particle has a certain extend as it is present not only in 1 place at the same time. Because of this, you can't even have exactly straight line-shaped things.

[joeseth05]

> And nonetheless we have recognized something

> that is true, about a real phenomena.

This claimed real phenomena is actually false, because a regular object, which is made out of bosons(if you strip all electrons), can be at the same location than some other one(within the constraints of the uncertainty principle). So, this actually is a scientific hypothesis which actually got falsified by experiments, namely by the existences and properties of lasers, super conductivity and super fluidity.

[joeseth05]

1)

20:08

> "No 2 objects can occupy the same place."

> I would claim this says something about

> the real world; it is not just a definition.

true

> Nonetheless, is this a hypothesis? What strikes me,

> this is suretainly not a hypothesis.

actually, it is, and a false one on top of that.

[joeseth05]

I agree with everything the guy in the video said in the beginning and I even arrive to the same conclusions at the end, but I disagree with most thing he stated in the middle of the video.

There are several logical and definitional problems. I'll try to sum them up.

[TheUnworthy]

That was delicious.

[whoo689]

Isn't that what a social science is, testing the evidence against theories about human behavior? No one's denying that man is ever-changing, unlike much of nature, but I would think behavior and economies work in a constant enough way that you CAN prove or at least attempt to prove some things with evidence and stats. There is also a thing called correlation, which of course isn't causation but does establish SOME relationship between 2 variables.

[Moragauth]

The point is that you need the theories beforehand to even make sense of the variables. Otherwise they are just meaningless aggregates. They shift too much to allow for establishment of causation, so one must look elsewhere to construct economic theories. The truth of the matter is there have been next to no good discoveries made by "empirical" methods that were not already outlined by the aprioristic appoach. What the Laffer curve demonstrates was known by austrians beforehand.

[Moragauth]

When one notices the effects of lower taxation in the economy all one is doing is determining that a given theory's conditions are operative.

[whoo689]

I mean, does Austrian economics even have any official economic formulas (like algebraically, similar to the stuff Keynesian devised) or something? Maybe you guys have a point, but it still seems overall we'd have a better chance of defending ourselves with good, hard evidence. The only people who'll listen to Austrian economists are those who it makes sense to (basic logic) or those who HAVE researched economics a lot and know it's the truth. The rest will think it's not worth it.

[AFRIKTODAY]

I disagree respectfully! To begin with, what is a science? And what is a scientific method? It is impossible to "test" or establish economic principles when you are dealing with subjective human actions and choices. The problems with keynesians and other schools of economics is that they tend to ignore the center point of all economic activities. That's the individual, the consumer! Understanding the individual actions are the best way to establish economics laws! That's why I love Austrians!!

[Moragauth]

The value of algebraic formulae in economics at this point should be greatly re-evaluated. They rarely succeed in elucidating much that verbal reasoning could not. Some Austrians do believe Austrian econ should be parsed in math (e.g. Ludwig van den Hauwe), but I'd like to see them prove this.

[lengthyounarther]

I dont have time to inform myself because I have high time preference ;)

[myheadhurtsnow]

history = good hard evidence

[whoo689]

Fortunately, my campus (University of Missouri) has a known Austrian economist named Joe Klein (or is it Peter?). However, he's a rarity in the overall field. We could get a lot more people to our cause and fix the economic situation in a BIG way if we actually proved with evidence that we're right. Simply saying "Manipulating interest rates screws up the economy" may make sense, but it does little good for us if we can't back it up and show why Bernanke is an idiot or the Fed sucks.

[AFRIKTODAY]

Come on now? The dollar has lost 95% of its value since the inception of the Fed and the US has gradually lost its economics strength over these years. What more evidence does a man need to understand the fallacy that paper money is?

[Moragauth]

Peter Klein. Austrians don't resort to formulae because they don't believe mathematical modeling for econ works in generating theories, and tbh I think they're 99% right. Figures etc are fine for economic history (and so if Austrians use maths it is to explain what happened in a given event, determine which theory's conditions are operant &c.), but not so much ones determining economic laws which require a different approach to be understood.

[Moragauth]

Either way Austrian econ is empirical, but not in the sense of using deliberately false assumptions to "test" against the world when much of the groundwork needed for econ can be grasped by understanding what the concept of action entails, ie grasping highly certain empirical truths (even undeniable ones.) So when Hoppe says "empirical" substitute for "positivist". Things like elasticities &c. are never constant, but always subject to continual flux.

[whoo689]

But how do you arrive at these "empirical" truths in the first place? I kind of get where you're going with this, but it really seems to me to be a copout for lazy Austrians who don't like having to do research and proving their points. If you believe in Arthur Laffer's theories, I'd suggest to you there is a whole BODY of evidence to support the notion that taxes that are too high will usually give you LESS REVENUE than expect, and vice versa with lower taxes. Is that not positivist?

[Moragauth]

Why lazy? Mises did tons of empirical research. So what? He believed it is an inappropriate method for arriving at theories in economics. And you arrive at them via conceptual analysis, e.g. of action.

[cambo61]

I've found through Human Action that our unique methodological approach has an almost "built-in" protection against political usurpation. This has made it unpopular with the statist agenda.

Understanding that "acting man" has purpose and intent is critical. Other economic approaches at Mises' time and even now reduce man to irrational behavior. "Man is merely unconsciously reacting and market activity disguises man's irrational choices."

There is enormous wisdom built into Mises work.

[whoo689]

This is the one thing I dislike about Austrians. I mean, WHY shouldn't our theories be based on empirical evidence?  Logic only goes so far.

[Moragauth]

Read Mises or Hoppe and find out? Moreover, they don't base their theories purely on "logic" and no theory is ever based on "empirical" evidence alone . They oppose the use of the hypotheticho-deductive method in econ (called "empiricism", unfortunately.) Austrian theorising takes highly certain "empirical" truths and operates on them deductively. There really isn't much difficulty grasping this...

[whoo689]

Well, as a long-time Austrian proponent, I've heard a lot of those arguments for why Austrian economics doesn't use empiricism as much. However, I still find it a little ridiculous. I mean, wouldn't we get a lot more people to be Austrians instead of Chicagoans and esp. Keynesians if we actually PROVED to them that Austrian economics is on the ball?? As much as I hate to say it, a lot of people (not me personally) find our kind loony in the economics field. Econ. depts. don't teach this. :/

[Moragauth]

Perhaps you should read Mises or Hoppe or Long or Selgin and find out? Austrians oppose the use of the (misnamed as "empirical") hypothetico-deductive methodology in economics, in favour of one operating deductively on highly certain empirical truths. They do not only use logic, and no theory is ever "based" on empirical evidence. Austrians use a methodology, most economist (claim to) use an instrumentalist on, i.e. conjectural. So please inform yourself on this.

[DarthKazi]

If, by "empirical evidence" you mean things like "utiles" which attempt to give precise, quantitative values to things... the flaws in such empiricism are abounds. Preferences and values, in reality, are ordinal in nature. You don't want object X 6.25 more utiles than object Y and 24.6 utiles more than object Z, etc. You like X, Y and Z inordinate to each other.

It isn't about "logic" so much as it's about unpredictable human action. Empiricism always fails to account for praxeology.

[AtheistThatsATheist]

Following on from AFRIKTODAY, there is no such thing as utiles in Austrian economics because there are no constants in human, subjective value.

You may have 10 apples, Today you decided to eat the first, bake the second two and then trade the rest for oranges.

tomorrow you decided to do something else with your 10 apples(my examples) You can give your values numbers, but only an order. Its margianl value. This video watch?v=DFe-PRKud5g

Followed by watch?v=h36Dni1ZPX0

Should esplain it

[Nielsio]

Our theories should be based in theory. Seems rather appropriate don't you think?

[Loserido]

Misesdotorg recently published a short article by Rothbard called "What is the proper way to study man?" and he explains exactly why empirical evidence does not work in economics.

[AFRIKTODAY]

Empirical evidences need constants! Are Human rational individual constants? You cannot calculate or build a rational hypothesis on an ever changing, subjective person. That was quite evident until the 50s. I believe we should return to that tradition in the field of economics.

[Surhotchaperchlorome]

Damn, Mises, you on a video uploading spree!