Forum Replies Created
December 6, 2013 at 12:23 am in reply to: Methodology of Economics – Austrians vs. Neo-classical #18131
Thank you Dr. Herbener for providing the above comparison of the schools.
I have a question about how the 2 schools view so-called “Game Theory.” I believe Rothbard stated it was a branch of praxeology (essay in Economic Controversies and also in Man, Economy, & State) Yet I am not sure I can find any real information on Rothbard or Mises discussing Game Theory or writing much about it.
Can you make any comments on how the two schools of thought view Game Theory, especially what the Austrian Schools approach to this subject? It seems highly mathematical and statistical and yet I do not see any real application for its use.
Thank you!November 6, 2013 at 10:31 am in reply to: Methodology: Austrian School vs. Neoclassical/Chicago School #18049
Thanks Dr. Herbener for the advice on how to best proceed and be productive in this type of back/forth.
I agree that his view is pretty typical for neoclassicals to hold that the body of knowledge they call “economics” can only be “if/then” propositions which are contingent and non-necessary. Austrians disagree with this.
So, I’ll be sure to point out we DO disagree and hold different positions on the specific dichotomoy between theory (praxeology) and history/forecasting (thymology & entrepreneurship)
Much appreciated!October 29, 2013 at 8:08 pm in reply to: Methodology: Austrian School vs. Neoclassical/Chicago School #18047
As far as what I presented as the Austrian (dualist) methodology argument, do you think I present a good case that accurately summarizes the major points?October 29, 2013 at 4:49 pm in reply to: Methodology: Austrian School vs. Neoclassical/Chicago School #18046
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.