3 ms·

I'd say that's treating econmics as pure math rather than science.

sudosysgen 6y ago
No, no it's not. It's treating economics as some bastardized version of philosophy, not math. Mathematical axioms are based on the principle that you cannot imagine an alternative axiomatic system, I can easily imagine a different axiomatic system for economics, and that the axioms cannot be empirically contradicted. And I can actually justify it empirically.
- beaunative 6y ago
  You maybe right, but not the way you interpret math. Mathematical axioms are not empirical, and contradictions do arose from those axioms. Non-Euclidean geometry[0] would be a good starting point, Russell's paradox[1] is also worth entertaining. Mathematical axioms are assumptions made that works treated as truth, not the truth taken for granted. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    That's exactly my point. Mathematical axioms aren't empirically testable, and mathematics accepts many different axioms. Praxeology doesn't accept other axioms, and the axioms it accepts are empirically testable. Which is the why math is fine but Austrian economics isn't. Also, mathematics doesn't make claims on the real world.
- himinlomax 6y ago
  You may want to brush up on what's happened in mathematics over the past 150 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    That's exactly the point. Non-euclidien geometry is still geometry, and axiomatic systems without the Axiom of Choice is still math. The Austrians start with their axioms and do not accept anyone with other axioms. And unlike mathematical axioms, their axioms are actually empirically testable.

No, no it's not. It's treating economics as some bastardized version of philosophy, not math. Mathematical axioms are based on the principle that you cannot imagine an alternative axiomatic system, I can easily imagine a different axiomatic system for economics, and that the axioms cannot be empirically contradicted. And I can actually justify it empirically.

beaunative 6y ago
You maybe right, but not the way you interpret math. Mathematical axioms are not empirical, and contradictions do arose from those axioms. Non-Euclidean geometry[0] would be a good starting point, Russell's paradox[1] is also worth entertaining. Mathematical axioms are assumptions made that works treated as truth, not the truth taken for granted. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  That's exactly my point. Mathematical axioms aren't empirically testable, and mathematics accepts many different axioms. Praxeology doesn't accept other axioms, and the axioms it accepts are empirically testable. Which is the why math is fine but Austrian economics isn't. Also, mathematics doesn't make claims on the real world.
himinlomax 6y ago
You may want to brush up on what's happened in mathematics over the past 150 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  That's exactly the point. Non-euclidien geometry is still geometry, and axiomatic systems without the Axiom of Choice is still math. The Austrians start with their axioms and do not accept anyone with other axioms. And unlike mathematical axioms, their axioms are actually empirically testable.