5 ms·

Austrians do not "eschew" mathematics nor empiricism, rather they reject the claim that what is commonly called empirical evidence actually is, and admit to the

Austrians do not "eschew" mathematics nor empiricism, rather they reject the claim that what is commonly called empirical evidence actually is, and admit to the limits of empiricism in social sciences. Aping the physical sciences in some form of cargo-cult formalism is not only wrong, but leads to flawed conclusions. Austrians assert that the only way to empirically know a person's preferences is through observing their choices. There is no objective meaning to graphs that rely on the assumption that people have these scales of numbers in their heads that say, "An apple is five utils, a banana is ten." The only meaning comes from decisions - either you prefer the apple to the banana, or you prefer the banana to the apple. Austrians further assert that any macroeconomic model must be a result of (or at least 100% consistent with) valid microeconomic principles. A macroeconomic model which concludes something that is not explainable in terms of human decisions is necessarily wrong.

Locke1689 15y ago
rather they reject the claim that what is commonly called empirical evidence actually is, and admit to the limits of empiricism in social sciences. Aping the physical sciences in some form of cargo-cult formalism is not only wrong, but leads to flawed conclusions. Empirical evidence is exactly what it says it is and mathematics is exactly what it says it is. That's what makes them facts and mathematics. What you argue using those facts is completely different. Austrians assert that the only way to empirically know a person's preferences is through observing their choices. No they don't. Because then they could collect data on these choices, produce a model, and formally define it mathematically. This is the fundamental truth of falsifiable systems. There is no objective meaning to graphs that rely on the assumption that people have these scales of numbers in their heads that say, "An apple is five utils, a banana is ten." The only meaning comes from decisions - either you prefer the apple to the banana, or you prefer the banana to the apple. There are more systems of mathematics than ones based on continuous distributions. Consider the following definition: forall people, exists pref : (fruit, fruit) -> {-1, 1} st. forall a,b in fruit => pref(a,b) This is math. This formally encodes your statement. This is the kind of thing that Austrian economics should define and use. The fact that they don't is why I don't take them seriously. Austrians further assert that any macroeconomic model must be a result of (or at least 100% consistent with) valid microeconomic principles. A macroeconomic model which concludes something that is not explainable in terms of human decisions is necessarily wrong. So? I can both know that all quantum particles obey the Schrödinger wave function in all atomic structures and be completely unable to derive the properties of Si just from the wave construction of protons, electrons, and neutrons. Just because we know microeconomic models doesn't make them useful in a macroeconomic context.

Locke1689 15y ago

rather they reject the claim that what is commonly called empirical evidence actually is, and admit to the limits of empiricism in social sciences. Aping the physical sciences in some form of cargo-cult formalism is not only wrong, but leads to flawed conclusions. Empirical evidence is exactly what it says it is and mathematics is exactly what it says it is. That's what makes them facts and mathematics. What you argue using those facts is completely different. Austrians assert that the only way to empirically know a person's preferences is through observing their choices. No they don't. Because then they could collect data on these choices, produce a model, and formally define it mathematically. This is the fundamental truth of falsifiable systems. There is no objective meaning to graphs that rely on the assumption that people have these scales of numbers in their heads that say, "An apple is five utils, a banana is ten." The only meaning comes from decisions - either you prefer the apple to the banana, or you prefer the banana to the apple. There are more systems of mathematics than ones based on continuous distributions. Consider the following definition: forall people, exists pref : (fruit, fruit) -> {-1, 1} st. forall a,b in fruit => pref(a,b) This is math. This formally encodes your statement. This is the kind of thing that Austrian economics should define and use. The fact that they don't is why I don't take them seriously. Austrians further assert that any macroeconomic model must be a result of (or at least 100% consistent with) valid microeconomic principles. A macroeconomic model which concludes something that is not explainable in terms of human decisions is necessarily wrong. So? I can both know that all quantum particles obey the Schrödinger wave function in all atomic structures and be completely unable to derive the properties of Si just from the wave construction of protons, electrons, and neutrons. Just because we know microeconomic models doesn't make them useful in a macroeconomic context.