Mises and the Problem of Induction

  • Alexander Linsbichler
Chapter

Abstract

A rational reconstruction of Mises’ problem situation reveals that his primary epistemological concern is the problem of induction. Applying a regressive method, three major tenets of his philosophy of science and their implications can be identified: (1) Anti-naturalism, i.e., the postulate that there is no induction in the social universe, renders the efforts of the Historical School spurious. (2) Mises opines that his dualism concerning the psycho-physical problem, the purely methodological character of which is often overlooked, is incompatible with materialistic and physicalistic research in the social sciences. This involves a rejection of behaviorism. (3) Finally, all holistic, essentialist, and even many macroeconomic approaches contradict Mises’ individualism and are thus rejected. Further traits of Mises’ philosophy of science include realism, Wertfreiheit (value freedom), and a rejection of polylogism.

Keywords

Ludwig von Mises Problem of induction Anti-naturalism Methodological dualism Individualism Realistic models 

References

  1. Block, Walter E. 1980. “On Robert Nozick’s ‘On Austrian Methodology’”. Inquiry 23(4): 397–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Block, Walter E., and William Barnett. 2010. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on Indifference Once Again”. Reason Papers 32: 141–154.Google Scholar
  3. Boettke, Peter J., and Christopher J. Coyne. 2015a. “Introduction: Austrian Economics as a Progressive Research Program in the Social Sciences.” In Boettke and Coyne 2015b, 1–10.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 1992. “Commentary.” In Caldwell and Böhm 1992, 60–65.Google Scholar
  5. Caplan, Bryan. 1997. “Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist.” http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm.
  6. ———. 1999. “The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations”. Southern Economic Journal 65(4): 823–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. (1932) 2004. “Überwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Analyse der Sprache”. In Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie und andere metaphysikkritische Schriften, edited by Thomas Mormann, 81–109. Philosophische Bibliothek 560. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
  8. Chodorov, Frank. (1947) 1962. “Taxation is Robbery”. In Out of Step, 216–239. New York: The Devin-Adair Company.Google Scholar
  9. Friedman, Michael. 2011. “Carnap on Theoretical Terms: Structuralism Without Metaphysics”. Synthese 180(2): 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Galbraith, John K. (1958) 1998. The Affluent Society. 40. Anniversary ed., Updated and With a New Introd. by the Author. Mariner Books. Boston, MA u.a: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  11. Garrison, Roger W. 1978. “Austrian Macroeconomics – a Diagrammatical Exposition.” In Spadaro 1978, 167–204.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 1992. “The Limits of Macroeconomics”. Cato Journal 12(1): 165–178.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2001. Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure. Foundations of the Market Economy. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hacohen, Malachi H. 2002. Karl Popper: The Formative Years, 1902–1945; Politics and Philosophy in Interwar Vienna. 1. Paperback ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. ———. (1955) 1964. The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies in the Abuse of Reason. London: Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 1980. “Preface”. In Methodological Individualism, 1. Bruxelles: Institutum Europaeum.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 1999. The Sensory Order: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Theoretical Psychology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 2008. Prices and Production and Other Works on Money, the Business Cycle, and the Gold Standard, edited by Joseph T. Salerno: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  19. Heath, Joseph. 2014. “Methodological Individualism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/methodological-individualism/.
  20. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1983. Kritik der kausalwissenschaftlichen Sozialforschung: Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung von Soziologie und Ökonomie. Studien zur Sozialwissenschaft 55. Opladen: Westdt. Verl.; VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———. 1995. Economic Science and the Austrian Method. Auburn, Ala: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2005. “Must Austrians Embrace Indifference?” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 8(4): 87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hudik, Marek. 2012. “Transitivity: A Comment on Block and Barnett”. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 15(4): 456–462.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2001. “Garrisonian Macroeconomics”. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 4(3): 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ———. 2003. “Facts and Counterfactuals in Economic Law”. Journal of Libertarian Studies 17(1): 57–102.Google Scholar
  26. ———. (2002) 2003. “Introduction to the Third Edition: From Vale Theory to Praxeology”. In Epistemological Problems of Economics, 3rd ed., ix–lv. Auburn, AL: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2007. Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  28. Hume, David. (1748) 2008. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Reissued. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Ikeda, Yukihiro, and Kiichirō Yagi, eds. 2012. Subjectivism and Objectivism in the History of Economic Thought. Routledge Studies in the History of Economics 146. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Kaufmann, Felix. 1929. “Soziale Kollektiva”. Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie 1: 294–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ———. 1944. Methodology of the Social Sciences. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. ———. (1936) 2014. Felix Kaufmann’s Theory and Method in the Social Sciences. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science 303. Cham: s.l. Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. ———. 1996. The Meaning of Market Process: Essays in the Development of Modern Austrian Economics. Foundations of the Market Economy Series. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 2001. Ludwig Von Mises: The Man and His Economics. Library of Modern Thinkers. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 2003. “The Viennese Connection: Alfred Schutz and the Austrian School”. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 6(2): 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Long, Roderick T. 2001. “The Benefits and Hazards of Dialectical Libertarianism”. Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 2(2): 395–448.Google Scholar
  37. ———. 2002. “Keeping Context in Context: The Limits of Dialectics”. Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 3(2): 401–422.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 2006. “Realism and Abstraction in Economics: Aristotle and Mises versus Friedman”. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 9(3): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. ———. 2013. Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action – Praxeological Investigations. Auburn, AL: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Mäki, Uskali. 1992. “The Market as an Isolated Causal Process: A Metaphysical Ground for Realism.” In Caldwell and Böhm 1992, 35–66.Google Scholar
  41. McFalls, Laurence H. 2007. “The ‘Objectivist’ Ethic and the ‘Spirit’ of Science”. In Max Weber’s ‘Objectivity’ Reconsidered, edited by Laurence H. McFalls, 351–373. German and European Studies. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Menger, Carl. (1883) 1985. Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences with Special Reference to Economics. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  43. ———. 1989. Zu den Lösungsversuchen des Induktionsproblems und des Abgrenzungsproblems bei Carl Menger. Sitzungsberichte/Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 541. Wien: Verl. d. Österreich. Akad. d. Wiss.Google Scholar
  44. ———. 1997. “Hufeland als Vorläufer von Menger und Hayek”. In Wert, Meinung, Bedeutung: Die Tradition der subjektiven Wertlehre in der deutschen Nationalökonomie vor Menger, edited by Birger P. Priddat, 89–160 Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschsprachigen Ökonomie 3. Marburg: Metropolis-Verl.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 2008. “Inductivism and Anti-Essentialism in Menger’s Work”. In Carl Menger: Neu Erörtert Unter Einbeziehung Nachgelassener Texte, edited by Gilles Campagnolo and Stephan Haltmayer, 59–86. Wiener Arbeiten zur Philosophie Reihe B, Beiträge zur philosophischen Forschung 17, Lang: Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  46. Mises, Ludwig von. 1920. “Zu Karl Mengers achtzigstem Geburtstag”. Neues Wiener Tagblatt, February 22: 52.Google Scholar
  47. ———. 1929. “Karl Menger und die Österreichische Schule der Nationalökonomie – Anlässlich der Enthüllung des Denkmals an der Universität”. Neue Freie Presse, January 29(23123): 23124.Google Scholar
  48. ———. 1933. Grundprobleme der Nationalökonomie: Untersuchungen über Verfahren, Aufgaben und Inhalt der Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftslehre. Jena: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
  49. ———. 1937. “Die österreichische Schule der Nationalökonomie”. Der Wirtschafter – Informationsblatt für Finanz, Handel und Industrie 17: 316–317.Google Scholar
  50. ———. 1940. Nationalökonomie: Theorie des Handelns und Wirtschaftens. Genf: Editions Union.Google Scholar
  51. ———. (1953) 1977. “Comments About the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Problems”. Journal of Libertarian Studies 1(2): 97–100.Google Scholar
  52. ———. 1978. Erinnerungen: Mit 1 Porträt und einer Bibliographie der Veröffentlichungen von Ludwig v. Mises. 1. Aufl. Stuttgart, NY: Fischer.Google Scholar
  53. ———. (1927) 1985. Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition. 3rd edn. Irvington-on-Hudson: Foundation for Economic Education.Google Scholar
  54. ———. (1962) 1990. “Epistemological Relativism in the Sciences of Human Action”. In Money, Method, and the Market Process: Essays by Ludwig Von Mises, edited by Richard M. Ebeling, 37–51. Auburn, AL: Praxeology Press of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  55. ———. 1990. Money, Method, and the Market Process: Essays by Ludwig Von Mises, edited by Richard M. Ebeling. Auburn, AL: Praxeology Press of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  56. ———. (1942) 1990. “Social Science and Natural Science”. In Money, Method, and the Market Process: Essays by Ludwig Von Mises, edited by Richard M. Ebeling, 3–15. Auburn, AL: Praxeology Press of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  57. ———. (1944) 1990a. “The Treatment of ‘Irrationality’ in the Social Sciences”. In Money, Method, and the Market Process: Essays by Ludwig Von Mises, edited by Richard M. Ebeling, 16–36. Auburn, AL: Praxeology Press of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  58. ———. (1944) 1990b. “The Treatment of ‘Irrationality’ in the Social Sciences”. In Money, Method, and the Market Process: Essays by Ludwig Von Mises, edited by Richard M. Ebeling, 16–36. Auburn, AL: Praxeology Press of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  59. ———. (1949) 1998. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. The Scholar’s Edition. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  60. ———. (1937) 2002. “The Logical Character of the Science of Human Action”. In Between the Two World Wars: Monetary Disorder, Interventionism, Socialism, and the Great Depression, edited by Richard M. Ebeling, 341–347. Selected writings of Ludwig von Mises/ed. and with an introd. by Richard M. Ebeling; Vol. 2. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  61. ———. (1933) 2002. “The Logical Problem of Economics”. In Between the Two World Wars: Monetary Disorder, Interventionism, Socialism, and the Great Depression, edited by Richard M. Ebeling, 335–340. Selected writings of Ludwig von Mises /ed. and with an introd. by Richard M. Ebeling; Vol. 2. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  62. ———. (1933) 2003. Epistemological Problems of Economics. 3rd edn. Auburn, AL: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  63. ———. (1969) 2003. The Historical Setting of the Austrian School of Economics. Online Edition. New Rochelle: Arlington House, Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  64. ———. (1957) 2005. Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution. Liberty Fund Library of the Works of Ludwig Von Mises. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  65. ———. (1951) 2008. “Trends Can Change”. In Planning for Freedom: Let the Market System Work; a Collection of Essays and Addresses, edited by Ludwig Von Mises and Bettina B. Greaves, 173–179. Liberty Fund Library of the Works of Ludwig Von Mises. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  66. ———. (1940, 1978) 2009. Memoirs. Auburn, AL: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  67. ———. (1912) 2009. The Theory of Money and Credit. Auburn, AL: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  68. ———. (1929) 2011. A Critique of Interventionism. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Instuitue.Google Scholar
  69. ———. (1934) 2012. “Maxims for the Discussion of Methodological Problems in the Social Sciences: Paper Delivered at the Private Seminar”. In Monetary and Economic Policy Problems Before, During, and After the Great War, edited by Richard M. Ebeling, 325–332. Selected writings of Ludwig von Mises /ed. and with an introd. by Richard M. Ebeling; Vol. 1. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  70. ———. (1962) 2012. The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method. Princeton: Martino Fine Books.Google Scholar
  71. ———. 2007. “Mises’s Suggested Research Topics: 1950–1968.”Google Scholar
  72. Nozick, Robert. 1977. “On Austrian Methodology”. Synthese 36: 353–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. O’Neill, Ben. 2010. “Choice and Indifference: A Critique of the Strict Preference Approach”. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 13(1): 71–98.Google Scholar
  74. O’Neill, John. 2000. “‘Radical Subjectivism’: Not Radical, Not Subjectivist”. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 3(2): 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Popper, Karl R. 1950a. “Indeterminism in Quantum Physics and in Classical Physics Part I”. British Journal of Philosophy Science I(2): 117–133. doi:  10.1093/bjps/I.2.117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. ———. 1950b. “Indeterminism in Quantum Physics and in Classical Physics Part II”. British Journal of Philosophy Science I(3): 173–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. ———. 1995. The Open Universe: An Argument for Indeterminism. Reprinted. Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  78. ———. (1906) 1997. The Poverty of Historicism. Repr. London u.a: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. Psillos, Stathis. 2011. “Choosing the Realist Framework”. Synthese 180: 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Reichenbach, Hans. (1938) 1961. Experience and Prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  81. Ringer, Fritz K. 2000. Max Weber’s Methodology: The Unification of the Cultural and Social Sciences. 2. print., 1. Harvard University Press paperback ed. Cambridge, MA u.a: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Rothbard, Murray N. 1951. “Praxeology: Reply to Mr. Schuller”. American Economic Review, 41(5): 943–946.Google Scholar
  83. ———. 1960. “The Politics of Political Economists: Comment”. Quarterly Journal of Economics 74(4): 659–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. ———. 1961. “Statistics: Achilles’ Heel of Government”. The Freeman (June): 40–44.Google Scholar
  85. ———. 1980. “Myth and Truth about Libertarianism”. Modern Age (Winter): 9–15.Google Scholar
  86. ———. (1963) 1990. What Has Government Done to Our Money? Baltimore: Laissez Faire Books.Google Scholar
  87. ———. (1956) 1997. “Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics”. In The Logic of Action One. Method, Money and the Austrian School, 2 vols, 211–254. Economists of the Twentieth Century/Murray N. Rothbard; 1. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  88. ———. 1998. The Ethics of Liberty. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  89. ———. 2006. “An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought 3 – From Marx to Hayek”.Google Scholar
  90. ———. 2010. Money, Sound and Unsound. Auburn: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  91. Schlick, Moritz. (1934). “On the Concept of Wholeness.” 388–399.Google Scholar
  92. Schumpeter, Joseph. (1908) 1980. Methodological Individualism. Bruxelles: Institutum Europaeum.Google Scholar
  93. ———. ed. (1908) 2010. The Nature and Essence of Economic Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publication.Google Scholar
  94. Smith, Adam. (1776) 1976. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations: Two Volumes in One, edited by Edwin Cannan. Chicago IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  95. Stringham, Edward P. 2010. “Economic Value and Costs Are Subjective.” In Boettke 2010, 43–66.Google Scholar
  96. Van Fraassen, Bas C. 2002. The Empirical Stance. The Terry lectures. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Vickers, John. 2014. “The Problem of Induction.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/.
  98. Weber, Max. 2002. Schriften zur Wissenschaftslehre. In Klarheit und Methode: Felix Kaufmanns Wissenschaftstheorie. Studien zur österreichischen Philosophie 16, edited by Max Weber and Michael Sukale. Universal-Bibliothek 8748. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  99. ———. 2008. “Objectivity and Understanding in Economics”. In The Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology, edited by Daniel M. Hausman, 3rd edn, 59–72. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  100. White, Lawrence. 1992. “Afterword: Appraising Austrian Economics: Contentions and Misdirections.” In Caldwell and Böhm 1992, 257–268.Google Scholar
  101. Zilian, Hans G. 1990. Klarheit und Methode: Felix Kaufmanns Wissenschaftstheorie. Studien zur österreichischen Philosophie 16. Amsterdam: RodopiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Linsbichler
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ViennaWienAustria

Personalised recommendations