Responding to Steele, by Robert Murphy
When it comes to taking potshots at Ludwig von Mises, there is no easier target than his “dogmatic” insistence that economic theories are true a priori, and that testing them is not only unnecessary but nonsensical. Mises believed economic science was a subset of praxeology—the science of human action—and that the methods of the natural scientist were inappropriate for the social scientist. I have tried in previous articles to explain and defend Mises’ unorthodox position. In the present article, I will respond to a few objections leveled by David Ramsay Steele in his book, From Marx to Mises: Post-Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation (Open Court, 1992).
Posted by Mises.org Working Papers