12.07.2015 Views

Economic Science and the Austrian Method_3

Economic Science and the Austrian Method_3

Economic Science and the Austrian Method_3

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Economic</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Austrian</strong> <strong>Method</strong>as logically incommensurable events. Only because <strong>the</strong> existenceoftime-invariantly operating causes as such is alreadyassumed can one ever encounter particular instances of confirmingor disconfirming observational evidence, or can <strong>the</strong>reever be an actor who can learn anything from past experienceby classifying his actions as successful <strong>and</strong> confirming someprevious knowledge, or unsuccessful <strong>and</strong> disconfirming it.It is simply by virtue of acting <strong>and</strong> distinguishing betweensuccesses <strong>and</strong> failures that <strong>the</strong> a priori validity of<strong>the</strong> principIeof causality is established; even if one tried, one couldnot successfully refute its validi~64In so underst<strong>and</strong>ing causality as a necessary presuppositionof action, it is also immediately implied that its rangeof applicability must <strong>the</strong>n be delineated a priori from thatof <strong>the</strong> category of teleolog)T. Indeed, both categories arestrictly exclusive <strong>and</strong> complementar)T. Action presupposes acausally structured observational reali~ but <strong>the</strong> reality ofaction which we can underst<strong>and</strong> as requiring such structure,is not itself causally structured. Instead, it is a reality thatmust be categorized teleologicall~ as purpose-directed,meaningful behavior. In fact, one can nei<strong>the</strong>r deny nor undo640n <strong>the</strong> aprioristic character of <strong>the</strong> category of causality see Mises, HumanAction, chapter 1; Hoppe, Kritik der kausalwissenschaftlichen Sozialforschung;idem, "Is Research Based on Causal Scientic Principles Possible in <strong>the</strong> Social<strong>Science</strong>s?"; on <strong>the</strong> causality principle as a necessary presupposition in particularalso of <strong>the</strong> indeterminacy principle of quantum physics <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> fundamentalmisconception involved in interpreting <strong>the</strong> Heisenberg-principle as invalidating<strong>the</strong> causality principle see Kambartel, Erfahrung und StruktuJ; pp. 138-40; alsoHoppe, "In Defense ofExtreme Rationalism," footnote 36. In fact, it is precisely<strong>the</strong> indisputable praxeological fact that separate measurement acts can only beperformed sequentially which explains <strong>the</strong> very possibility of irreducibly probabilistic-ra<strong>the</strong>rthan deterministic-predictions as <strong>the</strong>y are characteristic of quantumphysics; <strong>and</strong> yet, in order to perform any experiments in <strong>the</strong> field ofquantummechanics, a.nd in particular to repeat two or more experiments <strong>and</strong> state this tobe <strong>the</strong> case, <strong>the</strong> validity of <strong>the</strong> causality principle must evidently already bepresupposed.78 • The Ludwig von Mises Institute

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!