In Defense of Praxeology as a Science

Praxeology is a study of Human Action based on the axiom of action and the axiom of argumentation.  The axiom of action clearly states that man acts in order to fulfill some felt uneasiness; he acts to change the world around him so that it is more in tune with what he feels will make him happier.  The axiom of argumentation states that since all people can argue, all people inherently assume a cause and effect world.  Neither of these axioms can be denied without proving them.  An attempt to prove that human action is not aimed at satisfying some purpose is in itself an action aimed at satisfying  a purpose.  If I tell you you can argue, and you claim you cannot argue, you are putting up an argument.

This science of human action uses deductive logic from these two axioms in order to explain economic phenomena.  "Kris went to the store to buy milk because he wanted milk and did not have any at the time."  In that sentence, we see "Kris" acting with a purpose... to get some milk.  We can deduce that he wanted milk based on the deduction that if he did not want the milk, he would not have bought it.  And finally, if he already had milk, there would have been no need to go out and buy some.  This is a pretty simple example of deductions that can be made based on the axioms of action and argumentation, but unfortunately there are many out there who would deny their validity. 

The scientific method, which is just a scholarly way to say "trial and error", is used in the natural sciences in order to explain the workings of inanimate objects. The idea is to gather information, form a hypothesis that explains how the object will react to different stimuli, and then test that hypothesis and record the results.  A chemist might say to himself, "If I mix A B and C chemicals, X will be the reaction."  Then he would proceed with his experiment and mix A B and C, and record the results.  If he gets the predicted results, he will proceed to run tests until he is certain that all variables have been accounted for, and there is absolutely no dispute that X is the result every single time A B and C are mixed together.  This method is absolutely invaluable when it comes to natural sciences.

But social sciences are much different.  A B and C are inanimate chemicals that have no choice but to obey the laws of physics (or the universe if you will).  Human beings are different.  While it is true that as human beings, we have our own inherent nature specific to us, there is no evidence that humans will react in the same exact way when exposed to the same exact stimuli.  For example, it used to be that "I will never read a book.  Books are boring, and better suited to fix lop-sided couches and tables."  but now days, it is much more likely the case that "if I have the time, I would love to read some more of the classics and maybe something on economics, philosophy, logic, epistemology, mathematics, physics, banking, history, or freedom." 

A praxeologist, observing people as thinking and animate beings, would argue that perhaps "kris had simply knocked books before giving them a try, and was persuaded to read a couple books at some point, and has discovered he was wrong about them."  whereas a natural scientist, looking at people as though they react to the same stimuli in the same way, would say "somehow Kris likes books now.  maybe it was the change in his diet, or maybe when his bed time changed, or perhaps when he tried beer for the first time, he started liking books.  We should run some field tests to see what happened." 

As it applies to economics, the person applying natural science principles to economics might say: "In case of a depression, the State should take some of everyone's money through taxation and go to war, to fix the economy.  After all, some statistics argue that World War II got the U.S. out of the Great Depression."  (A praxeologist would say, in the case of a depression, that the State should not take this course of action.  Instead, it should relax regulations and cut spending so that people can spend their own money, and production can be directed towards fulfilling people's demands.) 

Rather than making the obvious economic arguments here, I'm going to take a different route.  The main thing that exists with both methods, that is the "trial and error" method and the "deductions based on axioms" method is that they are both based strongly in logic.  Logic is about making arguments in the following format:  "if A then B."  In the natural sciences, the equation put into words would read "If my hypothesis is correct, then the outcome will be the same every time."  A praxeological equation put into words would read something like "If Kris wants to write a blog post then he will set time aside to write it." 

But why are experiments not included in the praxeological method?  That is simple.  The logical statement that makes experimentation the best way to study the natural sciences runs as the following:  "If all variables can be controlled, and all characteristics in the object(s) under study can be known, never change  then I should be able to determine how the object(s) will react to any given stimuli in every instance."  With human beings - "all variables cannot be controlled, all characteristics change and cannot be known, therefore I should NOT be able to determine how they will react to a given stimuli in every instance."

The variables are endless; how clean was the air you breathed today?  What have you thought about from the beginning of the day through now?  What did you eat for breakfast and in what quantity?  What time did you take your shower?  Did  you happen to see anything that would make you change your mind about jumping in front of a bus in order to save that squirrel?  As it applies to economics, the necessary data is neither observable or quantifiable: "How bad do you want that glass of water?  Would you rather have that five dollar bill, or that glass of water?  Would you make the same decision if you were in the desert about to die of thirst?  What would you pay for oxygen?  Would say the same if you were on a shuttle in outer space, and oxygen was running low?  Of course, therefore, this methodology is not justified to apply to human beings.

But what makes deductions from the axioms of argumentation and action a justified method?  As stated above, every action is purposeful, and that purpose is to relieve one's uneasiness.  "Yes, I wanted a glass of water, but then I discovered they also have Pepsi."  <-- Here it must have been the case that new information changed my mind.  My aim, however, never changed.  I simply decided that Pepsi would remove more uneasiness I had than water. 

The praxeological may be limited, since we assume (or I would say admit) that there are no constants in human actions or desires, but at least praxeology has with it the logic of admitting this truth.  Those who want to use the scientific method to conduct social science are at a loss, since they approach the situation assuming that knowledge about how everyone will act and react and what their desires are can be quantified, measured, and used to conduct social engineering.  This is precisely what F.A. Hayek referred to as "The Pretense of Knowledge."  The humble scientist who is willing to admit that since there are no constants pertaining to the subject under study, such a methodology will only lead to mistakes.  It is quite clear who the real scientist is... the person who is willing to admit there are limitations to we know when constants are non-existent. 

If you are not convinced here, then by all means, use the trial-and-error method when conducting social science.  But, keep in mind that in order to be honest with yourself, you should not propose any engineering until you have absolutely all the information you need, lest you want to make grave errors.  If you are an honest natural scientist in this respect, you will never propose any sort of engineering, as you will never have all the information you need (since it is not quantifiable, and since it is literally always changing). 

Thank You.