Interesting. I still maintain the Musgrave terms might have been better used, but whatever.
There's some detail with which you might not be familiar.
By Hayek co-opting a priori idealizations of his influences, say Von Mises, he necessarily enframes his logic in such a way that precludes the possibility of those idealizations being wrong . . . not only that but the theory requires of it no critical thought as to why one would assume rationality or not.
It's worse, actually. In his book Human Action, Mises created a school of thought that denied the very applicability of any objective test for any of his ideas, called Praxeology (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/11/1142945/-Paul-Ryan-s-Magical-Economic-Worldview-The-Austrian-School).
"Austrian Economics is the most epic case of circular reasoning ever constructed. A therefor B therefor C therefor D therefor A."
It raises that Ideal-as-idealized to a whole 'nother level.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 13/2/13 21:28 (UTC)There's some detail with which you might not be familiar.
By Hayek co-opting a priori idealizations of his influences, say Von Mises, he necessarily enframes his logic in such a way that precludes the possibility of those idealizations being wrong . . . not only that but the theory requires of it no critical thought as to why one would assume rationality or not.
It's worse, actually. In his book Human Action, Mises created a school of thought that denied the very applicability of any objective test for any of his ideas, called Praxeology (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/11/1142945/-Paul-Ryan-s-Magical-Economic-Worldview-The-Austrian-School).
"Austrian Economics is the most epic case of circular reasoning ever constructed. A therefor B therefor C therefor D therefor A."
It raises that Ideal-as-idealized to a whole 'nother level.