6 ms·
Long live the Austrian School. Nothing else makes sense.
by Towle_ 16y ago
Long live the Austrian School. Nothing else makes sense.
- borism 16y agoRight! Everything else uses math, and math is HARD! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Criticism_of_the_Austrian_School http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Criticism_of_th... Critics have concluded that modern Austrian economics generally lacks scientific rigor,[10][12] which forms the basis of the most prominent criticism of the school. Austrian theories are not formulated in formal mathematical form,[108] but by using mainly verbal logic and what proponents claim are self-evident axioms. [10] Caplan, Bryan. "Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist". George Mason University. Retrieved 2008-07-04. "More than anything else, what prevents Austrian economists from getting more publications in mainstream journals is that their papers rarely use mathematics or econometrics, research tools that Austrians reject on principle...Mises and Rothbard however err when they say that economic history can only illustrate economic theory. In particular, empirical evidence is often necessary to determine whether a theoretical factor is quantitatively significant...Austrians reject econometrics on principle because economic theory is true a priori, so statistics or historical study cannot "test" theory." [12] White, Lawrence H. (2008). "The research program of Austrian economics". Advances in Austrian Economics (Emerald Group Publishing Limited): 20 [108] Walker, Deborah L.. "Austrian Economics". Library of Economics and Liberty. Retrieved 2010-01-23.
- CamperBob 16y agoWell, there's some low-hanging fruit in that article. What branches of economics do rest on scientific rigor?
- borism 16y agotrue, there are a lot of axioms in many branches of economics that noone is allowed to touch, some have more, some have less. But AFAIK nowhere as much as in Austrian School today.
- nl 16y agoPlenty. The most obvious and best known recent example is game theory, which John Nash famously won the Economics Nobel for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash The 1947 book "Foundations of Economic Analysis" is worth looking at. The table of contents - replicated in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Economic_Analysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Economic_Analysi...) - will give you a good starting point.
- dmm 16y agoPsychology isn't mathematically formulated either. Is it science? Perhaps an Austrian economist would argue that economics is more closely related to psychology than physics. I have seen several mathematical "proofs" that not only god exists but that he is catholic. Is that science? What does the artifact of being mathematically formulated have to do with something being science?
- borism 16y agoof course math is not the only ingredient needed to do science, but it's something you can't do without. If your theory is based on "self-evident axioms" that nobody is allowed to challenge, what you've created is a cult or religion, not scientific branch. behavioral economics uses quite a lot of math alongside psychology.
- philwelch 16y agoPsychology (at least contemporary research psychology) is based on empirical research and judicious use of statistical techniques; Austrian economics is based on philosophical handwaving. Psychology involves observation and allows for an element of surprise; Austrian economics, at least since the days of Rothbard, involves coming up with moralistic arguments for libertarianism. (The early Austrians were important in the history of economics, but being an Austrian economist today is like being a Freudian psychologist today; people do it, but one has to look askance at such a person.)
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- dmm 16y agoOk that makes sense. But if the problem with Austrian economics is its lack of empiricism then say that. If I sit in my room all day and make up things about butterflies it's not science. But the reason for that is not a lack of mathematical formulas but the fact that I'm ignoring reality. Are you saying the basis of "mainstream"(non-austrian, keyesian? chicagoean?) economics is empirical research and judicious use of statistical techniques?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- ungerik 16y agoSo every result of a mathematical formula is true because it's math, right? Common sense can't be true, because there is no formula for it?
- borism 16y agoin fact it can't. in middle ages (and indeed to this day) it is common sense that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, yet it is blatantly false.