Responding to Steele
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
