@TheHomoludens They are undeniable because you can't try to deny them without contradicting yourself. It is a fact that human beings act to achieve pre-determined, subjective ends. You can't empirically prove this, and you can't empirically deny it. If you tried to deny it, you'd be acting to achieve a pre-determined, subjective end and would thus contradict yourself. The fact that we need to mathematically prove something this simple shows how far we've devolved.
@TheHomoludens "Are you trying to tell me that Mises predicted 1929 and 2008 in his books? Because if he didn´t, his predictions simply aren´t based on praxeology." In 1926, Ludwig Von Mises began sounding the alarm of an economic crash. Yes, he DID in fact predict 1929, and he also predicted 2008, which occurred as a result of the Austrian Business Cycle, a theory that he systematized in his book, "The Theory of Money and Credit".
@TheHomoludens "Besides: if "they are undeniable", why don´t all humans agree with them?" In trying to disagree with it, they are in essence agreeing with it. That's the beauty of it. You can't deny the Praxeological axioms without severe internal contradiction. I'm not saying that Praxeology is the only logical system out there. Praxeology only deals with Human Action, but you can't deny the axioms of Human Action without proving them correct.
@TheHomoludens "Exactly this is why I consider "Austrian economics" a religious system!" Religious systems are built on faith. Praxeologists don't use faith, they use logic and reason, so your classification of Austrian Economics as a religious system is built on pure fallacy. "I only reckognize that it´s NOT the only logically consistent system." I'm not saying that it is, I'm saying that the people saying it's axioms are not true are contradicting themselves.
@TheHomoludens "They were inductive reasoning based on experience and practise." No they weren't. Mises didn't create anything based on experience or history. In fact, he believed that history couldn't be used to prove anything since each historical event is heterogenous to itself. The Austrian system of Economics is purely logical deductive reasoning. No induction to it. Read "Human Action: A Treatise on Economics" by Ludwig Von Mises and learn the position before making an ass of yourself.
@TheHomoludens "Yes, they do. Axioms can´t be tested and you believe in your axioms to be "true"" We don't believe it to be true based on faith, we believe it to be true because there is no way of proving it false without severely contradicting yourself. It is thus accepted as a given truth. This is not rocket science.
@TheHomoludens I don't think Astrology is science, that's just history. It is a FACT that Astrology is science. It's a different kind of science, with different implications *watch you ignore that bit when you reply*, but it's a science none the less. As for selective attention, you haven't responded to any of my charges that you don't understand the material that you're trying to critique, and you don't even understand the position you're taking. Why should anyone take you seriously?
@TheHomoludens "You´re a deluded worshipper of "Austrian thought" without contact to the outside world," I don't worship anything, first and foremost. I could be convinced that Socialism is better than the Austrian thought if the arguments they presented actually had any merit. I've debated many a positivist, socialist, behaviorist, wanna-be philosophers, etc. So don't make broad assertions about me when you don't know anything about me. Continued.
@TheHomoludens Dude, you don't even understand the people, or the writings of the people you're trying to critique. Why in the world would anyone here take you seriously? You're just trolling at this point.
@TheHomoludens What's so hard about that? It's simply not true, that's what's so hard about it. Economics is in fact a science, but economics can't be tested like you'd test different principles in Chemistry or Physics. They use different methodology. Your radical positivism is blinding you. What are you going to try to tell me next? That philosophy isn't scientific?
@TheHomoludens Astrology is in fact a field of science, although on a different side of the scientific spectrum and the field itself has different implications, that doesn't make it a non-science or a pseudoscience. Dude, do you even understand science? You are saying some of the stupidest things that someone who supposedly understands what science is would say.
@TheHomoludens This entire comment was some pure garbage. First and foremost, you took a few quotes completely out of context and are trying to use them to represent ideas as something they're not. Did you even listen to the lecture that you're referencing? I'm willing to bet that you didn't. I mean, you don't seriously think you're proving something here (aside from the fact that you don't understand the material that you're critiquing), do you?
@TheHomoludens "Besides you´ve been intellectually regressing to ad hominem arguments for days now without ever dealing with any info accurately." Not dealing with any info accurately? Well, let's see. You've been criticizing the Austrian position when you don't even understand the Austrian position, you don't know the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning, you don't know what positivism is, you don't know anything about any of the topics you're talking about.
"That simple equation, too much aggregation
Ignores human action and motivation"
His eyes are at the ceiling the entire time.
Good lecture!
@TheHomoludens They are undeniable because you can't try to deny them without contradicting yourself. It is a fact that human beings act to achieve pre-determined, subjective ends. You can't empirically prove this, and you can't empirically deny it. If you tried to deny it, you'd be acting to achieve a pre-determined, subjective end and would thus contradict yourself. The fact that we need to mathematically prove something this simple shows how far we've devolved.
@TheHomoludens "Are you trying to tell me that Mises predicted 1929 and 2008 in his books? Because if he didn´t, his predictions simply aren´t based on praxeology."
In 1926, Ludwig Von Mises began sounding the alarm of an economic crash. Yes, he DID in fact predict 1929, and he also predicted 2008, which occurred as a result of the Austrian Business Cycle, a theory that he systematized in his book, "The Theory of Money and Credit".
@TheHomoludens "Besides: if "they are undeniable", why don´t all humans agree with them?"
In trying to disagree with it, they are in essence agreeing with it. That's the beauty of it. You can't deny the Praxeological axioms without severe internal contradiction. I'm not saying that Praxeology is the only logical system out there. Praxeology only deals with Human Action, but you can't deny the axioms of Human Action without proving them correct.
@TheHomoludens "Exactly this is why I consider "Austrian economics" a religious system!"
Religious systems are built on faith. Praxeologists don't use faith, they use logic and reason, so your classification of Austrian Economics as a religious system is built on pure fallacy.
"I only reckognize that it´s NOT the only logically consistent system."
I'm not saying that it is, I'm saying that the people saying it's axioms are not true are contradicting themselves.
@TheHomoludens No, he didn't use inductive thinking. He made simple deductions based on logical truths that can't be denied.
@TheHomoludens Read the comment you're responding to, genius. It's detailed there, and Praxeology IS in fact science. That's all.
@Moragauth Yep, unfortunately, none of the critics here have even read a shred Austrian work....
so simple, so good.
@TheHomoludens "you don´t seem to care about "what´s right?" and only about "being right"
Have you looked in a mirror recently?
@TheHomoludens "They were inductive reasoning based on experience and practise."
No they weren't. Mises didn't create anything based on experience or history. In fact, he believed that history couldn't be used to prove anything since each historical event is heterogenous to itself. The Austrian system of Economics is purely logical deductive reasoning. No induction to it. Read "Human Action: A Treatise on Economics" by Ludwig Von Mises and learn the position before making an ass of yourself.
@TheHomoludens "Yes, they do. Axioms can´t be tested and you believe in your axioms to be "true""
We don't believe it to be true based on faith, we believe it to be true because there is no way of proving it false without severely contradicting yourself. It is thus accepted as a given truth. This is not rocket science.
@TheHomoludens I don't think Astrology is science, that's just history. It is a FACT that Astrology is science. It's a different kind of science, with different implications *watch you ignore that bit when you reply*, but it's a science none the less.
As for selective attention, you haven't responded to any of my charges that you don't understand the material that you're trying to critique, and you don't even understand the position you're taking.
Why should anyone take you seriously?
@TheHomoludens "You´re a deluded worshipper of "Austrian thought" without contact to the outside world,"
I don't worship anything, first and foremost. I could be convinced that Socialism is better than the Austrian thought if the arguments they presented actually had any merit. I've debated many a positivist, socialist, behaviorist, wanna-be philosophers, etc. So don't make broad assertions about me when you don't know anything about me.
Continued.
@TheHomoludens Dude, you don't even understand the people, or the writings of the people you're trying to critique. Why in the world would anyone here take you seriously? You're just trolling at this point.
@TheHomoludens What's so hard about that? It's simply not true, that's what's so hard about it. Economics is in fact a science, but economics can't be tested like you'd test different principles in Chemistry or Physics. They use different methodology. Your radical positivism is blinding you. What are you going to try to tell me next? That philosophy isn't scientific?
@TheHomoludens Astrology is in fact a field of science, although on a different side of the scientific spectrum and the field itself has different implications, that doesn't make it a non-science or a pseudoscience.
Dude, do you even understand science? You are saying some of the stupidest things that someone who supposedly understands what science is would say.
@TheHomoludens This entire comment was some pure garbage. First and foremost, you took a few quotes completely out of context and are trying to use them to represent ideas as something they're not. Did you even listen to the lecture that you're referencing? I'm willing to bet that you didn't.
I mean, you don't seriously think you're proving something here (aside from the fact that you don't understand the material that you're critiquing), do you?
@TheHomoludens "Besides you´ve been intellectually regressing to ad hominem arguments for days now without ever dealing with any info accurately."
Not dealing with any info accurately? Well, let's see. You've been criticizing the Austrian position when you don't even understand the Austrian position, you don't know the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning, you don't know what positivism is, you don't know anything about any of the topics you're talking about.