Praxeology as an Alleged Solution of the Problem of Induction

  • Alexander Linsbichler
Chapter

Abstract

According to Mises, the strictly universal sentences of economics can be legitimated logically and epistemologically. Praxeology allegedly provides an a priori true theory of human action. Several aspects of the precise content of the a priori true fundamental axiom “Man acts” and of the additional, empirical auxiliary axioms are explicated. To act involves to employ means in order to attain ends. Idiosyncratically, all actions are rational on Mises’ account. Finally, three issues of Mises’ praxeology are discussed, which are often neglected or denied otherwise: Mises’ fallibilism, the necessary and challenging combination of praxeology with thymology in explanations, and Mises’ interest in empirical questions.

Keywords

Explanation Ludwig von Mises Fundamental axiom Rational action Praxeology and thymology Verstehen 

References

  1. Blaug, Mark. 2006. The Methodology of Economics: Or How Economists Explain. 2. ed. Reprint; Digital Printing. Cambridge Surveys of Economic Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Block, Walter E. 1980. “On Robert Nozick’s ‘On Austrian Methodology’”. Inquiry 23(4): 397–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boettke, Peter J., and Peter T. Leeson. 2005. “Still Impossible After All These Years: Reply to Caplan”. Critical Review 17(1–2): 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boettke, Peter J., and Virgil H. Storr. 2002. “Post-Classical Political Economy: Polity, Society and Economy in Weber, Mises and Hayek”. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 61(1): 161–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cachanovsky, Nicolas. 2014. “Rejoinder to David Gordon”. https://puntodevistaeconomico.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/rejoinder-to-david-gordon/.
  6. Garrison, Roger W. 1978. “Austrian Macroeconomics – a Diagrammatical Exposition.” In Spadaro 1978, 167–204.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2014. “Mises and the Diminished A Priori.” http://mises.org/daily/6711/Mises-and-the-Diminished-a-priori.
  8. Hayek, F. A. 1943. “The Facts of the Social Sciences”. Ethics 54(1): 1–13. doi:  10.1086/290368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jasay, A. de 1991. Choice, Contract, Consent: A Restatement of Liberalism. London: IEA.Google Scholar
  10. ———. (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
  11. Knott, Adam. 2012. Praxeology and the Rothbardians. Kindle Edition. Adam Knot EBooks.Google Scholar
  12. Lachmann, Ludwig M. 1977. Capital, Expectations, and the Market Process: Essays on the Theory of the Market Economy, edited by Ludwig M. Lachmann and Walter E. Grinder. Studies in Economic Theory. Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2004. “Anti-Psychologism in Economics: Wittgenstein and Mises”. The Review of Austrian Economics 17(4): 345–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2013. Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action – Praxeological Investigations. Auburn, AL: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2014. “R.G.Collingwood: Historicist or Praxeologist?” https://mises.org/pdf/asc/2003/asc9long.pdf.
  16. Machlup, Fritz. 1978. “The Universal Bogey: Economic Man”. In Methodology of Economics and Other Social Sciences, 283–301. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McElroy, Wendy. 2003. Debates of Liberty: An Overview of Individualist Anarchism, 1881–1908. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  18. Milonakis, Dimitris, and Ben Fine. 2009. From Political Economy to Economics: Method, the Social and the Historical in the Evolution of Economic Theory. Economics as Social Theory. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 1940. Nationalökonomie: Theorie des Handelns und Wirtschaftens. Genf: Editions Union.Google Scholar
  20. ———. (1927) 1985. Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition. 3rd edn. Irvington-on-Hudson: Foundation for Economic Education.Google Scholar
  21. ———. (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
  22. ———. (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
  23. ———. (1949) 1998. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. The Scholar’s Edition. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  24. ———. (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
  25. ———. (1933) 2003. Epistemological Problems of Economics. 3rd edn. Auburn, AL: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  26. ———. (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
  27. ———. (1962) 2012. The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method. Princeton: Martino Fine Books.Google Scholar
  28. ———. (1906) 1997. The Poverty of Historicism. Repr. London u.a: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Rothbard, Murray N. 1951. “Praxeology: Reply to Mr. Schuller”. American Economic Review, 41(5): 943–946.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 1977. “The Distinction Between Theory and History”. Inquiry 1(14): 22–23.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 1997. The Logic of Action One. Method, Money and the Austrian School. 2 vols. Economists of the twentieth century/Murray N. Rothbard; 1. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 1998. The Ethics of Liberty. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  33. ———. 2009. Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles; with Power and Market: Government and the Economy. Auburn, AL: MISES.Google Scholar
  34. Salerno, Joseph T. 1996. “Ludwig von Mises und seine Ansichten über Vernunft, Wirtschaftsrechnung und die Gesellschaft.” In Grüske 1996, 91–111.Google Scholar
  35. Storr, Virgil H. 2010. “The Facts of the Social Sciences Are What People Believe and Think.” In Boettke 2010, 30–40.Google Scholar
  36. Supper, M., and E. Hofbauer, eds, 1981. “Ludwig von Mises – Seine Ideen und seine Wirkung”. Special issue, Wirtschaftspolitischee Blätter 28(4): 1–151.Google Scholar
  37. Tucker, Benjamin. 1896. Individual Liberty. New York: Vanguard Press.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. ———. (1977) 2003. The Methodology of the Austrian School of Economics. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  40. Zanotti, Gabriel J., and Nicolas Cachanovsky. 2015. “Implications of Machlup’s Interpretation of Mises’s Epistemology”. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 37(1): 111–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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