I'm actually quite certain of this. I'm not a scholar of Austrian economics but it's my understanding that Austrian economics rejects empiricism and relies only theories that it derives from logical axioms. This bears no relation to academic economics or social science, both of which rely upon rigorous empirical methodologies designed to test various social scientific theories. Inductive reasoning plays an important role in academic economics and Austrian "economists" reject this approach on the grounds that data is "subjective". That isn't an assertion accepted by any social scientific scholars, who believe that rigorous methodology and natural experiments provide sufficient grounds for revising, rejecting and proposing theory.
Even in its primitive years, economics was a data driven and empirical discipline. Scholars of political economy might have used rudimentary methods but they firmly believed in relying upon observation to make assertions about economics. Rejecting empiricism is effectively rejecting economics. Austrian economics isn't economics, it's shoddy philosophy. It resembles a cult or a religion because there are no grounds for disagreement among Austrian "economists". If I say that counter-cyclical fiscal policy has a demonstrable effect on output, Austrian "economists" would say that fiscal policy creates recessions and I'd reply that there are many instances in which price fluctuations exist without the presence of any state and reference the findings of behaviorists. Austrians would have no response: I'd be wrong because I rejected the internal logic of their cult. This hypothetical is no different than a Biologist attempting to have a conservation with an Evangelical Christian.
The Austrian School uses data, and Austrian economists use inductive methodologies to explain the data. Austrians are not particularly concerned with the predictive value of universal models because they don't support the notion of universal economic models. Instead, Austrians tend to view economic activity as unique to a particular time and space (econometrics is not highly valued). Since economic circumstances are unique, Austrians attribute predictive accuracy to the deductive work (praxeology) of individual economists. On occasion, Austrians have developed theories with universal applicability, like subjective value theory or time preference, but since they have no comprehensive macro or micro models of their own, other schools simply conscript Austrian theories without attribution.
Neoclassical economists and Austrians were getting relatively cozy in the middle of the 20th century, but Milton Friedman cleaved the Austrian school from neoclassicism, when he said that any field of economics is relatively worthless, if it lacks predictive capability. Because the Austrian school generally though of Friedman as one of their own, these remarks started a schism within the Austrian School, imo. Some Austrians wanted more discipline and more focus on "mainstream" economic theory, while others used Friedman's remarks as justification for a move farther towards experimental theory.
The schism has become uncivilized because the mainstream-wing has attempted to claim both Hayek and von Mises for themselves, though Hayek was quite conventional and von Mises was quite experimental. The experimental-wing of the Austrian School wants to cede Hayek to the neoclassical schools and move on in the tradition of von Mises. Disparaging Hayek and dismissing him from the Austrian school has drawn criticism from outside the Austrian School, giving rise to allegations of puritanical cultism within the experimental-wing.
Poll
