Yes, youre right but irrelevant because the self-evident is the base of causal knowledge. Ie, there is more than the self-evident in the physical sciences and the human sciences. Eg, a child rolls a ball and recognizes that pushed balls roll (in some context, with qualifications from subsequent knowledge). Then he may learn that the friction of a rug slows the pushed ball. Etc. There is the derivative knowledge built on the self-evident, ie, the vast and varied knowledge that man has produced in his history. Consider the millenia of knowledge of varied causes (star movements, tides, balls rolling down inclined planes, etc.) that was induced into Newton’s discovery of universal gravity. Man puts knowledge of causes together, ie, he induces and then induces the inductions, etc. This allows an ever wider or more specialized knowledge of causes. Consider all the causes needed to cause a car to move and to explain it. See David Harriman’s _Leap of Logic_ (2010) for induction in physics. He rejects the contemporary reliance on statistics (tho statistics has a narrower, derivative validity). But induction in the human sciences has not yet been theoretically identified. I believe that Austrians do induce but its not obvious or explicit. And consider that deduction is always from a prior induction as in Aristotle’s famous syllogism about Socrates and mortality. I think that some of Mises’ insights are inductions, of various hierarchical levels, from the self-evident even tho he only discusses deduction from the stationary economy. Mises, a Kantian, thinks that axioms are in thought rather than in perception-based reasoning about concrete reality. An Objectivist economist, Brian Simpson, who has a recorded lecture on Austrian business cycle theory, says deduction is important in economics. Economist George Reisman, who integrates classical, Austrian, etc. into his own system, has some comments in his massive _Capitalism_ (free, online). Rand, who has several Mises books in the bibliography of her _Capitalism_, rejects his praxeological method as rationalist. She holds that _all_ knowledge is based in perception and then integrated into concepts. See her _Intro to Objectivist Epistemology_ for a radically new theory of concepts as volitional/logical products with measurement-omission. Concepts are then induced into generalizations. Mises knew that philosophy is the base of the special sciences but accepted Kant’s rationalism rather than Aristotle’s realism. There is an Objectivist recorded lecture by Richard Salsman on Menger as Aristotelian and how later Austrians became subjectivists (starting knowledge and value inside consciousness instead of in the perception of concrete reality). Rothbard is said to be a causal realist. I have only fragmented knowledge of induction in economics but hope that my studies of various Austrians will lead to a theory of induction in economics. It does strike me as interesting how Mises’ concern w/the economically self-evident was similar to the philosophical self-evident. Philosophy, of course, has the widest self-evidencies, eg, existence, causality, entities, etc. I had not previously thought that economics also had self-evidencies that were so obviously valid.