Talk:Austrian school

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)

Contents

[edit] nor rational nor neutral nor instructive

I have to say that I and a fellow have been spending the last 15 minutes laughing. Good job! But is this a "rational wiki" or just a "fun" wiki?

Yes, the Austrian school has gone through some kind of "popular" resurgence: bats*it libertarians and self-proclaimed anarcho-economists bi*ching around about praxeology all over the place. I get what you mean. Man I know that feeling. Yes, THAT is pseudoscience, fair enough.

But praxeology is not THE epistemology of the Austrian school. It was developed by Von Mises during the 1940s. And quite not his major contribution to the economic science indeed.

I should not need to school RATIONAL wiki on logical fallacies, but indentifying the more than 150 years of Austrian economic thought with "praxeology and wingnuts" (say, aged Von Mises + Rothbard and followers) is one. Just sayin'. It'd be like filling the page on the keynesian school with all the BS and wrong forecasts Krugman or Samuelson have written. It'd be a very long page and great fun to read as well, but it wouldn't be... instructive?

--Edosan (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Bizzarre vendetta

Why does the Austrian economics article go on and on with endless jokes, insults, canards, sideshows, and cheap shots at strawmen, while the following article is supportive to an absurd degree: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Keynesian economics is one of the biggest pseudosciences of them all. The fallacies in the General Theory were torn to a million pieces by Hazlitt, the predictive successes are pathetic, and I have yet to see a single constant of economics or fixed mathematical relation, like "F=Gm1m2/r^2", backed up by empirical evidence. Where are the mainstream economists who come forward and admit when their BS is falsified by real-life data???

I'm wondering where in the world this vendetta against AE comes from. Is the Fed paying its economists to come here and discredit it or something? Are the people here motivated by some kind of politics? — Unsigned, by: Abraxas / talk / contribs 2012-09-20T18:27:59

It's because "Rational" in this Wiki is defined as "anything that is popular in the big Universities", rather than the usual definition of "anything that is a product of reason based on well defined assumptions". It is similar to how some forms of Islam and Christianity define "Good" as "anything that agrees with us", rather than engaging with moral philosophy. --64.134.185.250 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
^ This line basically sums up the entire wiki. Rational has become equivalent to what is most popular among the rational straw men. Do not forget that it was rational at one time to consider earth as flat.— Unsigned, by: 122 167 101 109 / talk / contribs
Yeah since when did people in "universities" ever know anything, amirite? Ass. Sorry bro but praxeology is pseudoscience. Dsmelser (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Because Austrianism is nothing more than the apotheosis of willful and proud economic illiteracy, while Keynesianism is a legitimate approach to understanding human economic behavior in the real world.— Unsigned, by: 99.120.42.26 / talk / contribs
"Is the Fed paying its economists to come here and discredit it or something?" I think you answered exactly why this article should stay exactly like it is. Woowoo64.197.147.182 (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Praxeology is a aprioristic science

Same field of mathematics and logic. Based on deductive reasoning. Try to read Human Action. — Unsigned, by: 177.32.200.190 / talk / contribs 2013-01-07T05:39:20

Tell us the brilliant advantages of your "science" not being falsifiable. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Math not falsifiable too. Must to be a pseudocience. How to make a controlled social experiment? How to isolate variables? — Unsigned, by: 177.32.200.190 / talk / contribs 2013-01-08T23:39:58‎
Hello Hulk, how are you doing today? --Revolverman (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Math is not science, it's just logic.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
And Praxeology also... — Unsigned, by: 177.32.200.190 / talk / contribs 2013-01-09T02:27:31
No, it's just semantics and ad hoc assertions. --Tasurinchi (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


Math is falsifiable with logic instead of evidence from the material universe. Of course, math doesn't make claims about the material universe. Economics does. That happens to matter. Dsmelser (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously?

This article is so fucking devoid of understanding, so thoroughly stripped of reflection, so utterly removed from reason, that it hurts me to even be aware of it's existence.

To the author; I hope you someday, like a newborn kitten, manage to open your eyes, see the world around you; and then apply just a modicum of analysis to your surroundings, so that you may die a sentient being like the rest of us.

That is all. — Unsigned, by: 84.238.58.161 / talk / contribs

Do you know what a wiki is? A wiki has multiple authors. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 15:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
This page has a lot of potential, but some of the edits have made it laughable. Even a semi-serious critique of the Austrian school cannot have phrases like "massive buttload" contained therein. — Unsigned, by: 108.202.76.111 / talk / contribs 17:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously? (this page is awesome)

This might be one of the best wiki articles and descriptions I've ever read. Kudos to its authors! Bordacount (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Biased much?

"As the claims of Austrian economists are difficult to verify through empirical testing (and the same economists openly admit to it), it is generally considered to be a heterodox approach" (citation points to Krugman). Of course a Keynesian would oppose Austrian economics. It's like writing an article about the government and quoting an anarchist. — Unsigned, by: 130.80.28.26 / talk / contribs

Feel free to edit the article. You know, instead of whining. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 22:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to remove it from the intro because we actually mention it again alongside Milton Friedman's criticism in the ABCT-devoted section. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] What is the objection to the action axiom (aside from the fact that it's put forth as an axiom rather than an observation)

The action axiom basically states that one takes actions with specific goals in mind, with the intent of alleviating one's felt uneasiness in the present by acting in ways one anticipates will bring about a more desirable state of affairs in the future. Thus, human action is distinguishable from the actions of an air conditioner, vacuum cleaner and TV, which do not understand the purpose for why they do what they do; they do not select means based on their ability to accomplish goals.

One can argue that it's unscientific to claim that statements such as this are true without proving them. But does anyone doubt the truth of the statement (as opposed to objecting to the epistemology behind one's belief in it)? There are a lot of unproven theorems that mathematicians find useful. If a mathematician errs in saying that Euclid's Parallel Postulate has been proven, it doesn't mean that the postulate is untrue.

I would interpret "choice" to mean that you were looking for a way to solve a problem and considered various possible means. It could be, then, that a chess program that looks for a solution to a "mate in x moves" problem, finds the optimal one, and executes it, is engaging in what could be considered "human action". The goal is to win; various means are available; and the program selects and carries out the one that will achieve the goal. Maybe even electricity engages in such action, in that its goal is to complete a circuit by the shortest route, and given two alternatives, it will pick the one that achieves that goal best.

When you look at it that way, maybe appliances do engage in "human action". A ball thrown straight up in the air, too, seems to behave as though its "goal" is to reach the earth by the shortest route; does it make much difference whether its behavior is not the result of physics that take place within the ball (as is the case with the vacuum cleaner, whose circuits that perform its functions are located within the "acting" object, rather than outside of it)?

Mises might be wrong in making an arbitrary distinction between human and non-human action, but it's not clear that it would be fatal to the rest of his theories. So what if animals and appliances also engage in purposeful behavior sometimes; it doesn't mean that humans don't engage in purposeful behavior. One can still proceed from the idea of purposeful behavior to theories of supply and demand that show that interventionist policies would cause certain problems (such as shortages and surpluses); whether one views the costs as outweighing the benefits (even the Austrians admit that taxes and regulations benefit some people at the expense of others) depends on what your goals are. The Austrians admit that there is no way of proving objectively that one goal is better than another.

Whether the ABCT or the Keynesian "aggregate demand" theory are correct probably partly depends on what humans believe will best accomplish their goals. For example, if people think that a recession won't get better unless the government intervenes, and that they therefore shouldn't increase their savings or spending unless they anticipate such intervention, then the Keynesian theories could be self-fulfilling. On the other hand, if they were to believe in the ABCT and act accordingly, that theory might become self-fulfilling.

By the way, it would be an interesting question to ask "What is felt uneasiness"? What are pleasure and pain exactly, and what distinguishes what living creatures experience from the processes that take place within nonliving things and cause them to do what they do? Some of these questions, our language may be too limited to be able to express precisely. Maybe our minds now are incapable of solving these mysteries, but a future superhuman creature will be able to.

"There is a history of logic as there is a history of technology. Nothing suggests that logic as we know it is the last and final stage of intellectual evolution. Human logic is a historical phase between prehuman nonlogic on the one hand and superhuman logic on the other hand." Let's hope Mises was at least right that a more powerful kind of logic than what we have now may be on the way.

The Austrians say that economic principles can't be proven by the scientific method, but they are always citing historical examples as evidence backing up their theories. Really, when they point out that it is hard or impossible to know that one has adequately isolated particular variables in the social sciences, they are just saying that the laboratory conditions are not perfect. They do not regard the economic "experiments" that have been conducted by states and other actors as totally useless, though. Austrians still try to support conclusions using evidence. They use both deduction and induction at various times to prove various points, even though they claim armchair economics to be superior. Glideslope (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"Perhaps one reason they are so uncomfortable with empiricism is that Austrian economists are more interested in defending the political ideology of libertarianism than they are in advancing economic understanding,[6] and rigorous testing can sometimes undermine deeply held political beliefs." So in other words, perhaps they're being intellectually dishonest, which might include putting selfish personal gain ahead of truth. (Presumably worthy goals are almost always pursued by finding and sharing truth rather than lies. Lies are typically advanced to further selfish personal gain. Would anyone disagree with either of those two statements?)

We could accuse almost anyone of intellectual dishonesty, though. Suppose there is a person who believes capitalism is good for the world. He might become a factory owner because of this belief. It could also be that a person who wants to become a factory owner for personal gain uses the capitalist ideology as intellectual cover to diminish people's opposition to him or to put his own conscience at peace, if he is capable of such mental gymnastics. Do we have any way of knowing which it is?

People tend to end up in professions that are aligned with their ideology and to adopt ideologies that are aligned with their chosen professions. Unless there's a shred of evidence to support the speculation of intellectual dishonesty, maybe the sentence should be removed. Glideslope (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


One can argue that it's unscientific to claim that statements such as this are true without proving them. But does anyone doubt the truth of the statement (as opposed to objecting to the epistemology behind one's belief in it)?
You mean besides all of modern neuroscience and psychology? Not to mention the destruction of any useful conclusions that might be drawn from such an axiom as a result of the work done by Herbert Simon. Dsmelser (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Terrible Article

Rational Wiki is supposed to be about debunking pseudo-science, not advancing political agendas. — Unsigned, by: 91.229.33.254 / talk / contribs 27 March 2014, 12:24 (UTC)

Political agendas that rely on rank pseudoscience are fair game. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 03:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] We pissed someone off

http://kenpruitt666.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/rationalwiki-is-a-front-for-socialist-indoctrination/

What this article has to do with socialist indoctrination is anyone's guess.--TemplarJLS (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support