Methodology Austrian economists reject empirical, statistical methods and artificially constructed experiments as tools applicable to economics, saying that while it is appropriate in the natural sciences where factors can be isolated in laboratory conditions, the actions of human beings are too complex for this treatment. Instead one should isolate the logical processes of human action. Von Mises called this discipline “praxeology” – a term he adapted from Alfred Espinas (but which had been in use by others). The Austrian praxeological method is based on the heavy use of logical deduction from what they assert to be self-evident axioms or undeniable facts about human existence. The primary axiom from which Austrian economists deduce further certain conclusions is the action axiom which holds that humans take conscious action toward chosen goals.
My bold Statistical methods and experiments can’t work on humans? If this is so then every social science is invalid.
Instead one should isolate the logical processes of human action?
Yes Humans are always logical especially in a Crisis every Stock Market Crash is a testament to how logical people are in a Crisis./s
Not taking the illogical reactions of people into account when you know Man is illogical is nuts.
The Austrian praxeological method is based on the heavy use of logical deduction from what they assert to be self-evident axioms or undeniable facts about human existence.
Its funny how even with the best Philosophers logic often gets bent, self evident tends to conform to the bias of the person making the observation.
Especially when Stats and Experiments do not confirm, never mind real world experience. The Paulites view on healthcare is Free Markets rule! Healthcare is a great example of where this thinking is wrong.
We got decades worth of Real World experience of America’s Free Market Private Insurance vs France, Japan, Germany the Nordic countries etc who have National Healthcare.
In the Real World not the self-evident logical axioms of Austrian Economics decades of higher costs, shorter life spans and higher infant mortality rates confirm that Free Markets deliver worse healthcare at higher costs.
Now before the GOP and the Tea Baggers gets all racist and complain about America’s racial diversity bringing down our healthcare numbers compared to Europe and Japan lets remember Asians and Hispanics live longer than Whites.
"In the United States, Hispanics, despite their socio-economic hurdles, on average live longer than blacks by seven years, and whites by five years, says Dr. David Hayes-Bautista, a professor of medicine at UCLA.
“There’s something about being Latino that is good for their health,” Hayes-Bautista told HispanicBusiness.com, adding wryly: “Just think if we had access to health care."
My Bold the Paulites who hate immigration should consider what the average American life span and infant mortality rate would be without us.
They should REALLY reconsider their position on healthcare. The healthcare debate would look way worse compared to other countries without us.
When ever a science won’t confirm its truth with Stats and Experiments it becomes a Religion based on Faith.
When a religion ignores or rewrites historical truth it stops being a Religion and becomes Orwell.:)
It should be noted that Hispanics a mix of White, Indian and African American in some mix of one,two or all three are the most racially diverse group. We have very low health insurance rates but given our lifespan racial diversity has obvious benefits:)
Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, is a type of reasoning that involves moving from a set of specific facts to a general conclusion. It can also be seen as a form of theory-building, in which specific facts are used to create a theory that explains relationships between the facts and allows prediction of future knowledge. The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth. Induction is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on an observation instance (i.e., on a number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns
Logicaly anything I say might be considered true if it happens at least once in front of witnesses until then its just a theory however just because you form a theory with deductive logic it DOES NOT MEAN you don’t test the theory if you can
It does not mean that if in the Real World actual events disprove your ideas you still get to claim your right.
This would be the time to admit your wrong and figure out why. Then make some excuses, but first admit you were wrong academic discourse goes nowhere if nobody admits they are wrong.