It's not anti-empirical at all. It's just anti-numerology and against using induction when induction cannot be done. Compare Rothbard's history of the Great

It's not anti-empirical at all. It's just anti-numerology and against using induction when induction cannot be done. Compare Rothbard's history of the Great Depression ( http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf ) to the typical paper by a Harvard economist ( http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty ). Frankly, if you consider the Harvard papers to be more empirical, please inform me what form of crack you smoke, as it must be very high grade.