But the point of a priorism isn’t to make empiric predictions in the first place. To examine this, let us consider the example of putting two apples in a bowl, adding another two apples, and being left with four apples. This is often used, erroneously, as an empiric test of 2+2=4, but what you actually have done is not add two and two together but started with four apples and moved them closer together into a single container. That you frame this in terms of addition is somewhat arbitrary, and if you lived in a counterfactual universe where a fifth apple appeared, or, if in the process you somehow managed to destroy one apple, it does not disprove 2+2=4, which we can know is true a priori regardless of any empirical evidence.
Likewise with Austrian economics, at least in the Misesian view; praxeology purports to create a deductively sound framework that is essentially analytical.
On another note, Austrian economics actually begin with Carl Menger, famous as the author of the concept of subjective preferences and mutual gains from trade, ushering in the new paradigm of marginalism to replace the Smithian labour theory of value*. In addition, Mises’ concept of acting humans is strikingly similar to Menger’s concept of economising persons—if anything, Mises’ action axiom is less strict than Menger’s.
From division of labour to comparative advantage, the marginal revolution, the vast majority of major contributions to economics came from economists using methodologies that are essentially similar to the Austrian school.
*On LessWrong, the labour theory of value seems to often be misattributed to Karl Marx. This is historically inaccurate, as it was a very mainstream concept until it was replaced by none other than the founder of the Austrian school, ie. Carl Menger.
But the point of a priorism isn’t to make empiric predictions in the first place. To examine this, let us consider the example of putting two apples in a bowl, adding another two apples, and being left with four apples. This is often used, erroneously, as an empiric test of 2+2=4, but what you actually have done is not add two and two together but started with four apples and moved them closer together into a single container. That you frame this in terms of addition is somewhat arbitrary, and if you lived in a counterfactual universe where a fifth apple appeared, or, if in the process you somehow managed to destroy one apple, it does not disprove 2+2=4, which we can know is true a priori regardless of any empirical evidence.
Likewise with Austrian economics, at least in the Misesian view; praxeology purports to create a deductively sound framework that is essentially analytical.
On another note, Austrian economics actually begin with Carl Menger, famous as the author of the concept of subjective preferences and mutual gains from trade, ushering in the new paradigm of marginalism to replace the Smithian labour theory of value*. In addition, Mises’ concept of acting humans is strikingly similar to Menger’s concept of economising persons—if anything, Mises’ action axiom is less strict than Menger’s.
From division of labour to comparative advantage, the marginal revolution, the vast majority of major contributions to economics came from economists using methodologies that are essentially similar to the Austrian school.
*On LessWrong, the labour theory of value seems to often be misattributed to Karl Marx. This is historically inaccurate, as it was a very mainstream concept until it was replaced by none other than the founder of the Austrian school, ie. Carl Menger.
Edit: Fixed typo