Home › Forums › Discuss Austrian Economics, Step by Step › Economics relation to material and social sciences
- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 9 months ago by jmherbener.
July 22, 2019 at 9:28 pm #18971pacopasaParticipant
This may be off topic for this course but I am hoping you could recommend an article or book that addresses the position of economics in the sciences. I’m thinking that the study of a physical science like chemistry and a social science like psychology can discover remedies for natural ills and improvements for human existence. It seems to me that the study of Austrian Economics yields the remedy for man made problems of intervention and that remedy is free trade, whereas other schools of economic thought see natural problems in trade and try to come up with man made remedies. Thank you for any direction you can provide.July 24, 2019 at 8:23 pm #18972jmherbenerParticipant
You might take a look at the following:
https://mises.org/library/theory-and-history-interpretation-social-and-economic-evolutionAugust 10, 2019 at 6:15 pm #18973pacopasaParticipant
Came across the following in the Rothbard Reader, end of chapter 27.
It seems that Mill sees economics as not a social or behavioral science but a moral one, yet without value judgements. Yet I suspect liberty would be the value.
“It should be noted that economics is profoundly different from all other social or “behavioral” sciences. The latter, which try to develop sci- entific laws of the content of men’s actions, are determinist, mechanistic, and therefore behaviorist: men are treated like stones to be “observed,” charted, and “predicted.” Genuine economics, especially economics as it has emerged in praxeology and as shown by Dr. Kirzner, is quite the oppo- site; instead of mechanistically substituting behavior for action, it grounds its deductions squarely on the axiom of action, which means in essence on the axiom of man’s purposiveness and freedom of will. The conserva- tive, properly suspicious of the anti-human essence of the “social science,” should recognize that in economics, particularly economics in its most developed praxeological form, he has a staunch and extremely important ally. Praxeological economics rests squarely on the reality of the individual person, not on the collective; and instead of burying values and purpose, it portrays the individual as striving purposively to achieve his cherished ends. While, therefore, the actual construction of the edifice of economic law is strictly Wertfrei, in the deepest sense economics is not a “behav- ioral” nor even a “social” but—what Mill this time correctly called it—a moral science.”August 19, 2019 at 12:00 pm #18974jmherbenerParticipant
Interesting. You might consult Rothbard’s treatment of Mill in the second volume of his history of economic thought, Classical Economics:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.