Opinion of the Austrian School

[Cranberry]

Not bad.

I attended one for 12 years (or better said, 3 of them).

The only correct answer, Tender

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

People who argue that the Austrian School is just sociology are all basing their remarks on the lack of econometrics in Austrian economics. Math does not accurately predict the future or provide consistent economic forecasting.

Lack of math does not make economic theory something other than economics.

Econometrics is not primarily used as a forecasting device; it's primarily used to observe the relationships between various economic variables, to verify the veracity of theory and to formulate new theories. Every economics department in country requires students to have a proficient understanding of econometric tools, methods and uses. Econometrics is nothing more than applying statistical tools to the study of economics. Without empirical methodology underpinned by data, social science ceases to a science.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Not sure why austrian econ is bad because of no math.

The Austrian's School rejection of empiricism and its general rejection of mathematics doesn't make it "bad". It just means it has it's not Economics, which is a social scientific discipline.

[Person Man]

Where is this idea that sociology can't be quantitative coming from?

Have any of the ignorami making this claim even looked at a sociology paper published in the last thirty years?

Any social science can and must be statistical or have some way to show evidence for its claim. Things you can't prove is called faith.

[ag]

The Austrian School of Economics bears no relation to academic economics or social science. It also resembles a cult more than it resembles a school of thought.

That is a, mostly, correct description of the current self-professed "Austrian School." Historically, though, it was a legitimate school of thought in economics, which was crucial in formulating many of the ideas generally accepted by economists today. Unfortunately, that is all in the past.

[ag]

This. Sociology has no math and the only reason AS has math is because of it quantitative nature. The math is just basic Differential Equations.

How is math at predicting the future? Intuition, deduction and induction are worth more than econometrics advocates are willing to admit. People are not actually homo economicus.

I would suggest learning the meaning of words you use before you use them

[Deus Naturae]

Where is this idea that sociology can't be quantitative coming from?

Have any of the ignorami making this claim even looked at a sociology paper published in the last thirty years?

Any social science can and must be statistical or have some way to show evidence for its claim. Things you can't prove is called faith.

Austrian economics just makes a distinction between economic theory and economic history. Rational thought experimentation is the only thing needed to formulate sound economic theory. You can then compare that theory against the statistical record, and if they don't match either the statistics are the outcome of other factors or your reasoning was flawed somehow. But, if your reasoning is correct, it's impossible for your theory to be wrong.

[RI]

People are not actually homo economicus.

Duh, which is why behavioral economics exists, not to mention the entire art of relaxing assumptions.

[ag]

Where is this idea that sociology can't be quantitative coming from?

Have any of the ignorami making this claim even looked at a sociology paper published in the last thirty years?

Any social science can and must be statistical or have some way to show evidence for its claim. Things you can't prove is called faith.

Austrian economics just makes a distinction between economic theory and economic history. Rational thought experimentation is the only thing needed to formulate sound economic theory. You can then compare that theory against the statistical record, and if they don't match either the statistics are the outcome of other factors or your reasoning was flawed somehow. But, if your reasoning is correct, it's impossible for your theory to be wrong.

This is utter, unmitigated nonsense. You cannot conclude anything based on nothing. Every reasoning starts with some assumptions: a theorist's stand on how the world is. Reasoning develops these assumptions into (hopefully, observable) implications. There is no reasoning that can tell you that humans choose by optimizing a preference relation (the starting point of much of modern economics). It is a theory that, one hopes, will explain observed data. Logical reasoning is needed to understand what are the testable implications of preference maximization.

Similarly, say, the law of gravity in physics is not derived from logical reasoning: like every "Law of Nature" it is, essentially, an empirical statement. This particular empirical statement has been consistently confirmed by observation for so long that, if on observes a violation (say, an apple flying off into the sky), one will indeed be pretty certain that something is wrong with observation. However, if somebody designs an experiment that shows that under certain conditions apples at least sometimes fly off into the sky in a manner inconsistent with gravity laws as currently known, these "laws" would have to be reformulated: not because of any logical flaw, but because they would turn out to be at odds with reality.

[Person Man]

Where is this idea that sociology can't be quantitative coming from?

Have any of the ignorami making this claim even looked at a sociology paper published in the last thirty years?

Any social science can and must be statistical or have some way to show evidence for its claim. Things you can't prove is called faith.

Austrian economics just makes a distinction between economic theory and economic history. Rational thought experimentation is the only thing needed to formulate sound economic theory. You can then compare that theory against the statistical record, and if they don't match either the statistics are the outcome of other factors or your reasoning was flawed somehow. But, if your reasoning is correct, it's impossible for your theory to be wrong.

This is utter, unmitigated nonsense. You cannot conclude anything based on nothing. Every reasoning starts with some assumptions: a theorist's stand on how the world is. Reasoning develops these assumptions into (hopefully, observable) implications. There is no reasoning that can tell you that humans choose by optimizing a preference relation (the starting point of much of modern economics). It is a theory that, one hopes, will explain observed data. Logical reasoning is needed to understand what are the testable implications of preference maximization.

Similarly, say, the law of gravity in physics is not derived from logical reasoning: like every "Law of Nature" it is, essentially, an empirical statement. This particular empirical statement has been consistently confirmed by observation for so long that, if on observes a violation (say, an apple flying off into the sky), one will indeed be pretty certain that something is wrong with observation. However, if somebody designs an experiment that shows that under certain conditions apples at least sometimes fly off into the sky in a manner inconsistent with gravity laws as currently known, these "laws" would have to be reformulated: not because of any logical flaw, but because they would turn out to be at odds with reality.

I understand that if you think that numbers and formulas don't mean anything if what is observed is the same each time but what kind of predictive value is there if you can't make the logical connection between them? Also, having a mathematical model helps find missing variables to any argument. This is where the Austrian School has problems, it insists upon its assumptions being correct.