@Peter Cohen Some people don't like the word Praxeology because it sounds too pretentious or intimidating, but it is indeed an accurate term. As opposed to psychology or biochemistry, which seek to explain human action on the basis of empirical constants, structured causally, Praxeology (from the Latin Praxis or action) is the study of the logical implications of action. While it employs deductive reasoning to attain its conclusions, it is unique in that it studies action, or choice-making behavior, in particular. I personally think the term is appropriate and illustrates the unique nature of action as opposed to all other phenomena.
This lecture was more understandable than his previous lecture I watched. And you gotta love that dry humor. In the end, it did help me to understand praxeology a little better.
In the deductive method, you can chose axioms. In the empirical method, you can measure and model how you want. The real difference is, that in the deductive method, every proposition has meaning by itself, so any nonsense is quickly exposed.
7:54 Popper is everything but a logical positivist. He makes it very clear in Objective Knowledge and Conjectures and Refutation that he refuses to look down on metaphysics the way logical positivsts used to and he formulated very strong criticisms against Carnap's epistemological views, particularly as far his reductionism is concerned (you can't translate a theoretical statement e.g. in physics into observational language).
I agree. This was a common misunderstanding of Popper. He himself used the notion of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation only, i.e., how to distinguish metaphysical theories from scientific theories. It was not a criterion of meaning or value.
@dieyoung Thanks for pointing out praxgirl. Look her up if you haven't seen her videos yet. Not only does she have the ability to explain Praxeology in a great way, she is also easy on the eyes to say the least.
hoppe says that we need some practical real-world evidence of successful and unsuccessful strategies. he laments that the social science of economics has fallen into a vapid cluster of hypotheses, propositions, theories, warped logic and bogus mathematics. therefore, to predict human action is more an art than a science and the way to succeed in this endeavor is to live among people and understand their culture, psychology and circumstances. then we might gauge what they value and how highly these things rank in value. and this is the talent of the entrepreneur.
I have no problems with the philosophy behind it, but sad to say, the 'word' "praxeology" has always bothered me. I am very hesitant to use the word in conversation. To me it feels evocative of "phrenology" or some other "ology" for which we rightly have little respect. If I have cause to talk about methodology, I usually refer to it as deductive logic or something and give examples.
I may not understanding anything of Economy, but I'm an epistemologist. I have to say that, no matter how much I love what Hoppe and others have to say, Austrian's claims that those propositions are _a priori_ seems really preposterous! There are no exceptions to _a priori_ statements. For example, 2 + 2 will always be 4. But I have seem personally goods stop being bought because they were at 90% discount.... And then resume selling once they got a raise. So no, "things will sell the same or more if they are cheaper" isn't necessary, thus not aprioristic. And if something is thought to be aprioristic BUT empirical observation later disproves it, than it shouldn't be considered to be _a priori_ ever again... This makes me think that to find the truth in Economy we should maybe look somewhere between Austrian and Chicago's schools... Also the assumption that people will always act accordingly to their best interests is just as preposterous...
@Rex Irkalla I have to say here at my country, a third-world, poor and low IQ country, it is indeed _very common_ for many people stop buying things _because_ they are cheaper, and that happens because a) many people will think that if a product is too cheap in comparison to other stores then it means the product is a low quality falsification; b) many people prefer to buy expensive stuff, even (or maybe because) if they are poor, because they give high importance to status symbols... So no, it's not logically impossible, because _it happens_ , and all the time. If someone says it's know _a priori_ (thus something necessary) that the moon will not show up tonight, and when the night comes the moon shows up and some observer points out that the prevision was wrong... Sorry, that's not the fault of the observer, but of the one that made the prevision, and said prevision was just plain wrong. Trying to deny that is acting like the Marxist ideologies, who try to change reality to fit into their ideology. In the same way if someone says that "things will sell the same or more if they are cheaper" and I give an example contrary to it... The it wasn't something aprioristic. Because being _a priori_ means that it will _always_ happen, no matter what "variables" show up. Two plus two will always be true, no matter what. Despite what you said on your last paragraph, the problem with many Austrian economy proposers seems to be,from an outsider perspective, that they rely a little on people acting intelligently and according to their best interests, and then ignore the badly-informed, the misinformed and the plain mentally impaired people of the world, which happens to be the vast majority. Austrian economist seems to be highly intelligent but semi-autistic people, that cannot even start to fathom the motivations of ordinary people...
Claims like these of the cheaper price come after a "ceteris paribus" - which includes people's time preferences. This way, empirical observation doesn't apply, because we cannot change a single parameter in a complex system.
@richardcadbury I encourage you to do a bit more research before deciding to troll. If you disagree with the actual point he was making, then you disagree with the fundamental concepts of contract and property rights.
Saying that Popper is a logical positivist but under a different name is saying I have not read any of his books or I do not understand any of his books. Popper is an a priori fallibilist so way closer to AE than HHH thinks. He is not an infallible a priorist but that is where AE digs it's own grave too much as a completely unneeded defense against empiricism
ad hominem arguments will not hold water. I suppose you could say the same thing about princeton university, yale, harvard, the Federal reserve, heritage foundation and think progress. Basically you are saying that if someone does not agree with you, they cant think. I disagree, the only way to determine which ideas work is to have opposing thought. And if you actually disagree with Hans, please detail where you oppose his logic. If not, dont just insult him and how to get away with it.
Dissapointing. Hoppe doesn't really understand the logical positivists and their epistemology. Or he strawmans them. And as someone below said is absurd to believe all those statements are a priori.
I don't see that there's something "fundamentally wrong" in assuming your examples of non testable hypotheses may be true or false. Which depends on facts and they need to be assessed. You pretend these propositions have the same epistemic status as "a bachelor is an unmarried man" but give no argument for that claim. Nice try however to trick pseudo intellectuals into the libertarian abyss.
it is based on what kant postulated as synthetic a priori, it is pretty much something that cannot be falsified because if you attempt to falsify it, it will lead to a logical contradiction. Example, if you propose "propositions don't exist" that's a contradiction, you just made one. Praxeology proposes humans act, if one were to say "i don't act" that is a contradiction, you just did.
![[4K] Watch SpaceX Catch A Starship Rocket From Space!!! #IFT5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pIKI7y3DTXk/mqdefault.jpg)
It's a pleasure to watch this over and over everytime i get mad at my micro classes lol
I have to take a micro class later this year. Good thing I found LvMI beforehand.
Oh no! Bad little GDP cog! Bad! Now write out the utils equation 100 times!!!!! 😡
The guy is an economic historian rock star!
Thanks Mises!
@Peter Cohen
Some people don't like the word Praxeology because it sounds too pretentious or intimidating, but it is indeed an accurate term. As opposed to psychology or biochemistry, which seek to explain human action on the basis of empirical constants, structured causally, Praxeology (from the Latin Praxis or action) is the study of the logical implications of action.
While it employs deductive reasoning to attain its conclusions, it is unique in that it studies action, or choice-making behavior, in particular. I personally think the term is appropriate and illustrates the unique nature of action as opposed to all other phenomena.
I like the word praxeology because it demands you understand something new and interesting. BTW I just had to add it to the dictionary on RUclips.
... e.g. as walrasian microeconomics!
This lecture was more understandable than his previous lecture I watched.
And you gotta love that dry humor.
In the end, it did help me to understand praxeology a little better.
Just amazing, it´s an important, fundamental message to everyone who wants to begin to think about economics....
I was brought here by Rory Sutherland's Ted Talks, really interesting stuff!
Yesss Hoppe's talks are always the best. Thanks!
In the deductive method, you can chose axioms. In the empirical method, you can measure and model how you want. The real difference is, that in the deductive method, every proposition has meaning by itself, so any nonsense is quickly exposed.
7:54 Popper is everything but a logical positivist. He makes it very clear in Objective Knowledge and Conjectures and Refutation that he refuses to look down on metaphysics the way logical positivsts used to and he formulated very strong criticisms against Carnap's epistemological views, particularly as far his reductionism is concerned (you can't translate a theoretical statement e.g. in physics into observational language).
I agree. This was a common misunderstanding of Popper. He himself used the notion of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation only, i.e., how to distinguish metaphysical theories from scientific theories. It was not a criterion of meaning or value.
Hoppe is the 🐐
Hoppe is a fucking gangster!
@dieyoung
Thanks for pointing out praxgirl. Look her up if you haven't seen her videos yet. Not only does she have the ability to explain Praxeology in a great way, she is also easy on the eyes to say the least.
hoppe says that we need some practical real-world evidence of successful and unsuccessful strategies. he laments that the social science of economics has fallen into a vapid cluster of hypotheses, propositions, theories, warped logic and bogus mathematics. therefore, to predict human action is more an art than a science and the way to succeed in this endeavor is to live among people and understand their culture, psychology and circumstances. then we might gauge what they value and how highly these things rank in value. and this is the talent of the entrepreneur.
Is there a book in which he makes this sane argument? This is amazing.
"Economic science and the Austrian Method" is quite similar
HYPOSSESIS
Once tested a hypothesis, it is important to see if it is regressive or progressive
very good
I have no problems with the philosophy behind it, but sad to say, the 'word' "praxeology" has always bothered me. I am very hesitant to use the word in conversation. To me it feels evocative of "phrenology" or some other "ology" for which we rightly have little respect. If I have cause to talk about methodology, I usually refer to it as deductive logic or something and give examples.
Illuminating...
Praxgirl I'm convinced is just a pretty face. I'd much rather listen to this guy.
I may not understanding anything of Economy, but I'm an epistemologist. I have to say that, no matter how much I love what Hoppe and others have to say, Austrian's claims that those propositions are _a priori_ seems really preposterous! There are no exceptions to _a priori_ statements. For example, 2 + 2 will always be 4. But I have seem personally goods stop being bought because they were at 90% discount.... And then resume selling once they got a raise. So no, "things will sell the same or more if they are cheaper" isn't necessary, thus not aprioristic. And if something is thought to be aprioristic BUT empirical observation later disproves it, than it shouldn't be considered to be _a priori_ ever again...
This makes me think that to find the truth in Economy we should maybe look somewhere between Austrian and Chicago's schools...
Also the assumption that people will always act accordingly to their best interests is just as preposterous...
@Rex Irkalla I have to say here at my country, a third-world, poor and low IQ country, it is indeed _very common_ for many people stop buying things _because_ they are cheaper, and that happens because a) many people will think that if a product is too cheap in comparison to other stores then it means the product is a low quality falsification; b) many people prefer to buy expensive stuff, even (or maybe because) if they are poor, because they give high importance to status symbols... So no, it's not logically impossible, because _it happens_ , and all the time.
If someone says it's know _a priori_ (thus something necessary) that the moon will not show up tonight, and when the night comes the moon shows up and some observer points out that the prevision was wrong... Sorry, that's not the fault of the observer, but of the one that made the prevision, and said prevision was just plain wrong. Trying to deny that is acting like the Marxist ideologies, who try to change reality to fit into their ideology. In the same way if someone says that "things will sell the same or more if they are cheaper" and I give an example contrary to it... The it wasn't something aprioristic. Because being _a priori_ means that it will _always_ happen, no matter what "variables" show up. Two plus two will always be true, no matter what.
Despite what you said on your last paragraph, the problem with many Austrian economy proposers seems to be,from an outsider perspective, that they rely a little on people acting intelligently and according to their best interests, and then ignore the badly-informed, the misinformed and the plain mentally impaired people of the world, which happens to be the vast majority. Austrian economist seems to be highly intelligent but semi-autistic people, that cannot even start to fathom the motivations of ordinary people...
I think the same. I've also studied epistemology for various years and Hoppe doesn't seem to even completely understand the logical empiricists.
@@whateva1983 Definitively it isn't _a priori_ in the Kantian sense...
Claims like these of the cheaper price come after a "ceteris paribus" - which includes people's time preferences. This way, empirical observation doesn't apply, because we cannot change a single parameter in a complex system.
There's a reason for it. They value the "price tag" along with the item.it's the same reason people buy inferior nicer looking products.
Hans would be easier to understand without the accent, but he's awesome none the less.
Ich weiß nicht, wovon Sie reden.
I knew I recognized him!
I say the same thing. Thanks!
@richardcadbury I encourage you to do a bit more research before deciding to troll. If you disagree with the actual point he was making, then you disagree with the fundamental concepts of contract and property rights.
@siftyfour What about BEFORE you watched them?
Saying that Popper is a logical positivist but under a different name is saying I have not read any of his books or I do not understand any of his books. Popper is an a priori fallibilist so way closer to AE than HHH thinks. He is not an infallible a priorist but that is where AE digs it's own grave too much as a completely unneeded defense against empiricism
Mark reminds me a lot of John C. Reilly in the beginning.
50:10 that was a very new yorkish 'more dogmatic"
No transcript ?
Does Hoppe look more energetic in this lecture than others?
@TacticalCitySlicker About as vacuous as a rock star. Good analogy.
Hilarious slander of Popper
Names in German are impossible to get! LOL! :)
As a German it's ways funny to watch.
17:35
ad hominem arguments will not hold water. I suppose you could say the same thing about princeton university, yale, harvard, the Federal reserve, heritage foundation and think progress. Basically you are saying that if someone does not agree with you, they cant think. I disagree, the only way to determine which ideas work is to have opposing thought. And if you actually disagree with Hans, please detail where you oppose his logic. If not, dont just insult him and how to get away with it.
@8chxBLhJDy9 i havent watched it yet. check out praxgirl on youtube, she explains praxeology pretty clearly, plus shes a babe =)
She is smoking hot, even hotter after you check out her Facebook page.
Dissapointing. Hoppe doesn't really understand the logical positivists and their epistemology. Or he strawmans them. And as someone below said is absurd to believe all those statements are a priori.
lol at least ppl don‘t actually believe this nonsense themselves it‘s merely a tool
I don't see that there's something "fundamentally wrong" in assuming your examples of non testable hypotheses may be true or false. Which depends on facts and they need to be assessed. You pretend these propositions have the same epistemic status as "a bachelor is an unmarried man" but give no argument for that claim. Nice try however to trick pseudo intellectuals into the libertarian abyss.
it is based on what kant postulated as synthetic a priori, it is pretty much something that cannot be falsified because if you attempt to falsify it, it will lead to a logical contradiction. Example, if you propose "propositions don't exist" that's a contradiction, you just made one. Praxeology proposes humans act, if one were to say "i don't act" that is a contradiction, you just did.