Talk:Praxeology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Praise

Quite an excellent article! --ShaunMacPherson 07:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

What about any criticisms of von Mises and his praxeology? --Kiwibird 13:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delete recent additions?

Some of the recent additions like those referring to the "PostKantian base" don't seem to add anything. Consider deleting? Rjljr2 01:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing something?

It seems to me that the biggest thing missing in this article is the reason why neoclassical economics has become mainstream instead of this method. Until that information is added this article isn't of very much use. --Jayson Virissimo 05:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lacking objectivity

I think objectivity is missing from this article. Even the introduction is extremely dubious stating it is the "science of human action". Clearly this page is very pro-Austrian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.65.97 (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Err, Praxeology is a big part of Austrian economics isn't it? (and vice versa) Rjljr2 (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can praxeology be considered a science?

I have edited the definition to avoid defining it as a science. The subject is highly academic in nature and it is therefore proper that it be subjected to the academic definition of a science, which it does not meet. "Framework" is a more appropriate title. Nyopallo (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • You may have touched a nerve. As I understand it, there has been a controversy raging for decades about whether or not the study of human action requires empirical testability to be considered legitimate or "scientific". After all, no legitimate or truly meaningful testing can be conducted on human behavior in markets, etc. Some hints of this controversy are found in the discussions of positivism and scientism. While the term "framework" sounds ok to me, others more versed in Austrian praxeology may wish to weigh in here. --RayBirks (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • My justification here is outlined in the article and is more compelling when you consider the need for consistency between articles. Praxeology does not use data as an empirical science, and is therefore not one. Formal sciences, like mathematics and statistics, begin with very rigid and rigorous frameworks that are wholly predictable and can be broken down into their component parts. Praxeology, on the other hand, states in its very foundation that human action is too complex to be broken down into its component parts. I think that it would be acceptable to include the controversy in the article if there is someone who feels that is important enough, however I still feel that making any outright statement that praxeology is a science would be incorrect. Being a framework does not prevent it from also being a science, which is while I feel that it's a good term to use. Nyopallo (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd also like to point out that this deals with a previous issue raised on this talk page, namely that defining it as a science violates NPOV. Nyopallo (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have slightly changed the "misnomer" sentence to leave room for judgment about the use of the term "science". Separately, there is a further wiki page about the positivism controversy at Positivism dispute. At this writing, it is rather brief. --RayBirks (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lacking objectivity 2

The sentence "It is commonly referred to as a science, however this may be a misnomer because it does not appear to meet the guidelines for either empirical or formal sciences." should either be removed, or moved from the ingress to a separate section (Criticism?) and should be discussed seriously, and not used as mockery. They argue that it is a science because... Critics argue that... and so on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.67.8 (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)