IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jecmet/v24y2017i3p226-249.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What is extreme about Mises’s extreme apriorism?

Author

Listed:
  • Scott Scheall

Abstract

There is something extreme about Ludwig von Mises’s methodological apriorism, namely, his epistemological justification of the a priori element(s) of economic theory. His critics have long recognized and attacked the extremeness of Mises’s epistemology of a priori knowledge. However, several of his defenders have neglected what is (and what has long been recognized by his critics to be) extreme about Mises’s apriorism. Thus, the argument is directed less against Mises than against those contributions to the secondary literature that assert his methodological moderation while overlooking what the most prominent critics have found extreme about Mises’s apriorism. Defending Mises as a merely moderate apriorist because he held only a narrow part of the foundation of economics to be a priori is a straw-man defense against criticisms of his apriorism as epistemologically extreme.

Suggested Citation

  • Scott Scheall, 2017. "What is extreme about Mises’s extreme apriorism?," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 226-249, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jecmet:v:24:y:2017:i:3:p:226-249
    DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2017.1356439
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1350178X.2017.1356439
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1350178X.2017.1356439?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter, 2001. "On Rationality, Ideal Types and Economics: Alfred Schuutz and the Austrian School," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 14(2-3), pages 119-143, September.
    2. John B. Davis & D. W. Hands & Uskali Mäki (ed.), 1998. "The Handbook of Economic Methodology," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 741.
    3. Hands,D. Wade, 2001. "Reflection without Rules," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521497152, January.
    4. Scheall, Scott, 2015. "Hayek The Apriorist?," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 87-110, March.
    5. Bruce J. Caldwell, 1984. "Praxeology and its Critics: an Appraisal," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 363-379, Fall.
    6. Peter Leeson & Peter Boettke, 2006. "Was Mises right?," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 64(2), pages 247-265.
    7. repec:ucp:bkecon:9780226320625 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Roger Koppl, 2002. "Big Players and the Economic Theory of Expectations," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-62924-0, October.
    9. Boettke, Peter, 2015. "The Methodology Of Austrian Economics As A Sophisticated, Rather Than Naive, Philosophy Of Economics," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 79-85, March.
    10. Keynes, John Neville, 1890. "The Scope and Method of Political Economy," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, edition 4, number keynes1890.
    11. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521415019, December.
    12. Terence Hutchison, 1998. "Ultra-deductivism from Nassau Senior to Lionel Robbins and Daniel Hausman," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 43-91.
    13. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521425230, December.
    14. repec:ucp:bkecon:9780226320649 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Bruce Caldwell, 2009. "A skirmish in the Popper Wars: Hutchison versus Caldwell on Hayek, Popper, Mises, and methodology," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 315-324.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zanotti, Gabriel J. & Cachanosky, Nicolás, 2015. "Implications Of Machlup’S Interpretation Of Mises’S Epistemology," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 111-138, March.
    2. Gérard Charreaux, 2008. "La recherche en finance d’entreprise:quel positionnement méthodologique ?," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 11(Special), pages 237-290, June.
    3. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2011. "Economic Models as Analogies," PIER Working Paper Archive 12-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    4. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2014. "A Model of Modeling," PIER Working Paper Archive 14-026, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    5. Giandomenica Becchio, 2020. "The Two Blades of Occam's Razor in Economics: Logical and Heuristic," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, July.
    6. Morten Søberg, 2002. "The Duhem-Quine thesis and experimental economics. A reinterpretation," Discussion Papers 329, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    7. Francesco Guala & Andrea Salanti, 2002. "On the Robustness of Economic Models," Working Papers (-2012) 0208, University of Bergamo, Department of Economics.
    8. Marcel Boumans & Mary Morgan, 2002. "Ceteris paribus conditions: materiality and the application of economic theories," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 11-26.
    9. Eduardo Strachman & Jos Ricardo Fucidji, 2012. "The Current Financial And Economic Crisis Empirical And Methodological Issues," Journal of Advanced Studies in Finance, ASERS Publishing, vol. 3(1), pages 95-109.
    10. I. Gilboa & A. Postlewaite & L. Samuelson & D. Schmeidler, 2015. "Economic models as analogies," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 4.
    11. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2018. "Economics: Between Prediction And Criticism," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(2), pages 367-390, May.
    12. Søberg, Morten, 2003. "The Duhem-Quine thesis and experimental economics: A reinterpretation," Memorandum 21/2002, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    13. Ricardo F. Crespo, 2012. "Models as signs" as "good economic models," Estudios Economicos, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Departamento de Economia, vol. 29(58), pages 1-12, january-j.
    14. Stefania Sitzia & Robert Sugden, 2011. "Implementing theoretical models in the laboratory, and what this can and cannot achieve," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 323-343, December.
    15. van den Hauwe, Ludwig, 2007. "Did F. A. Hayek Embrace Popperian Falsificationism? A Critical Comment About Certain Theses of Popper, Duhem and Austrian Methodology," MPRA Paper 6067, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Drakopoulos, Stavros A., 2014. "Mainstream Aversion to Economic Methodology and the Scientific Ideal of Physics," MPRA Paper 57222, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Ralph W Bailey, 2012. "Human Economists and Abstract Methodology," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 17(1), pages 49-75, March.
    18. Geoffrey Poitras & Franck Jovanovic, 2010. "Pioneers of Financial Economics: Das Adam Smith Irrelevanzproblem?," History of Economics Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 43-64, January.
    19. D. Wade Hands, 2002. "Economic methodology is dead - long live economic methodology: thirteen theses on the new economic methodology," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 49-63.
    20. Kakarot-Handtke, Egmont, 2014. "Onblog Economics Muddle Busting," MPRA Paper 60543, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jecmet:v:24:y:2017:i:3:p:226-249. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJEC20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.