It does in the case of the (some) austrians. They don’t think economics can be empirical—it’s purely a theoretical science for them. And with no math.
And yet, even Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression makes hundreds of references to empirical facts (and uses quite a bit of descriptive statistics). My point is that there is a very loose connection between the stated methodological principles of economists and the actual manner in which they perform their research and construct their arguments.
I agree in general, but not for the hardcore Austrians like Rothbard. The facts are illustrative only for Rothbard. His argument doesn’t rest on empirical observations.
I agree in general, but not for the hardcore Austrians like Rothbard. The facts are illustrative only for Rothbard. His argument doesn’t rest on empirical observations.
I apologize for being unclear. I agree with your point that the facts Rothbard uses are “illustrative only”, but I deny that this separates Rothbard’s work from most of the economics profession. He is simply more upfront about it.
Of course, I agree entirely with your advice not to start learning economics within the Austrian Paradigm, which is why all of the texts I suggested were within the Neoclassical Paradigm.
Ah, I see. My impression of the economics profession as a whole is that there is a large group for which you’re description fits and another large group for which it doesn’t, but I don’t have any communicable evidence for this position. I’ve personally worked with several economists in the latter category, but they would probably put most of the profession in the former.
It does in the case of the (some) austrians. They don’t think economics can be empirical—it’s purely a theoretical science for them. And with no math.
And yet, even Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression makes hundreds of references to empirical facts (and uses quite a bit of descriptive statistics). My point is that there is a very loose connection between the stated methodological principles of economists and the actual manner in which they perform their research and construct their arguments.
I agree in general, but not for the hardcore Austrians like Rothbard. The facts are illustrative only for Rothbard. His argument doesn’t rest on empirical observations.
I apologize for being unclear. I agree with your point that the facts Rothbard uses are “illustrative only”, but I deny that this separates Rothbard’s work from most of the economics profession. He is simply more upfront about it.
Of course, I agree entirely with your advice not to start learning economics within the Austrian Paradigm, which is why all of the texts I suggested were within the Neoclassical Paradigm.
Ah, I see. My impression of the economics profession as a whole is that there is a large group for which you’re description fits and another large group for which it doesn’t, but I don’t have any communicable evidence for this position. I’ve personally worked with several economists in the latter category, but they would probably put most of the profession in the former.