Reply To: Methodology: Austrian School vs. Neoclassical/Chicago School


Thank you for taking the time to respond and weigh in on our discussion.

When both Luke Westman and I agreed to have a civil discussion, we agreed the context would be the methodology for “doing economics” specifically to investivate, explain, & elaborate the laws of human action.

In my piece, I tried to explain the perspective the Austrians (and those in the methodological dualist school) approach to “economics” or what Mises coined “Catallactics” which involves the area of interpersonal exchange.

Naturally, I expected Luke to claim that “doing economics” is an empirical science which uses the empricial scientific method with forming hypothetical propositions which needed to be either falsified or confirmed by some type of testing of data, etc.

So, I agree with you that he and I do in fact disagree with each other on what constitutes “economic theory” and what constitutes “economic history” or “economic forecasting”. I plan to issue a reply on this fundamental disagreement/confusion on what is or what is not “economics” proper.