Praxeology: The Method of Economics | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[Solideh]

It's a pleasure to watch this over and over everytime i get mad at my micro classes lol

[TacticalCitySlicker]

The guy is an economic historian rock star!
Thanks Mises!

[BultyR]

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.

[mignoyou]

Just amazing, it´s an important, fundamental message to everyone who wants to begin to think about economics....

[CASHXRAT]

@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. 

[GeorgWilde]

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.

[IdkJustCookingDude]

Yesss Hoppe's talks are always the best. Thanks!

[DanielRamBeats]

I was brought here by Rory Sutherland's Ted Talks, really interesting stuff!

[guy]

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).

[bashisobsolete.pythonismyn]

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.

[theprodigy]

Is there a book in which he makes this sane argument? This is amazing.

[BringItTheMax]

@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.

[ErickGarcia-nzkb]

Once tested a hypothesis, it is important to see if it is regressive or progressive

[dantean]

@siftyfour What about BEFORE you watched them?

[hunterhoose]

50:10 that was a very new yorkish 'more dogmatic"

[TheORBOTRON]

@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.

[dyne]

Praxgirl I'm convinced is just a pretty face. I'd much rather listen to this guy.

[TheManiacalSatanist]

Hans would be easier to understand without the accent, but he's awesome none the less.

[theweresheepdog]

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...

[bartvanderhaegen]

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