The world exists outside a laboratory. Let us never forget this lest we summarize the totality of the human experience through numbers.
Key Takeaways
– Economics is accessible to all, rooted in innate human understanding of action and behavior
– Effective policies prioritize understanding human behavior over statistical analysis
– Natural and social sciences investigate the world around us, each seeking to discern truth about creation in its own unique way.
I. Introduction
A. The Landscape of Economics
Forcing a layman to watch a program on modern economics is like spending a day at the DMV. You leave with nothing accomplished and your intelligence insulted. In response to this miserable experience, many choose to find solace by resting in the perfect knowledge of our economists and swiftly push the occurrence out of memory until they are faced with it again. Although there is virtue in this approach, the one who employs it unknowingly throws away their life. A conversation about economics is a conversation about one’s life; therefore, economics concerns every man, and selling ignorance to laypeople is an injustice. However, if we wish to change the state of economics, we must ask the following questions:
1. What is economics?
2. How did we arrive at this state of economics?
3. What is the best direction for economics?
Ludwig Von Mises, a prominent economist and social theorist, addresses these issues in “Social Science and Natural Science” by explaining the object of economics and the fundamental distinctions between social science and natural science, emphasizing methodological differences and implications for understanding human actions and behaviors.
B. Intentions for this series and defining prolegomena
This analysis of Mises’ writing will be of many posts I plan to make covering Austrian economics prolegomena. Prolegomena is a formal introduction where the subject states who it is, where it comes from, and what it seeks to do. It lays the foundation that allows the reader to walk gracefully through their field of study. Methodological dualism rests as one of many pillars that structure the Austrian school. Thus, this concept and others must now receive careful attention to allow for a smooth transition into later material.
II. What is Methodological Dualism
A. The term and how it was conceived
Methodological dualism maintains that social sciences should not rely on methods of natural sciences – such as physics, chemistry, or biology – because natural sciences deal with utterly different subjects of research. As Mises would describe it, the natural sciences operate through the “experience of the experiment.”1 In contrast, the social sciences always deal with “the experience of a complexity of phenomena.”2
Contrary to popular economics, the Austrian believes economics is a social science concerned with the complexity of phenomena that is human behavior. Unlike the scientific trials of its counterpart, the economist is not afforded constant relations. There are no experiments that can establish uniformities because human behavior is a complex phenomenon of people employing various means to reach different goals. Hence, the Austrian is opposed to calculating things in the aggregate because it is understood that the world cannot be confined to a laboratory.
Against the blind accusations, the Austrian is not compensating for their arithmophobia (fear of numbers) but is stating that this approach to economics is unsuitable for the given field of study. Likewise, for example, the scientific method does not work with the rules of logic because it is not a tangible thing that can be measured. So, it is not like experimentation does not have a legitimate role in the world of science. Instead, it is the case that it cannot account for this area of human experience.
III. The Positivist Movement
A. Origins of the current mindset on economics
Nonetheless, we live in a period where the scientific method presides over all science. Ludwig Von Mises believes this rise to power started in the Positivist movement. In short, the Positivist movement was a philosophical and scientific approach that emerged in the 19th century that “postulates a social science which has to be built up by the experimental method as ideally applied in Newtonian physics.”3 According to Positivism, the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge based on observable phenomena and empirical evidence.
B. Consequences of the Positivist movement
While Positivism has afforded us a form of advancement, it has come at the cost of the university. Treating complex phenomena as purely natural phenomena has led to reductionism, where the richness and diversity of human actions and intentions have been reduced to simplistic causal relationships commonly expressed through shifts in a demand curve.
Contrary to belief, modeling every methodology after the natural sciences does a disservice to other disciplines and the natural sciences themselves. This is because these branches of knowledge are forced to perform in ways they were not intended for. By failing to recognize these distinctions, we have pitted the best kid boxer against Mike Tyson. Although these two are great, the child is not in the same arena as Mike Tyson, and placing them together diminishes their accomplishments and unique contributions to the sport. Likewise, the scientific method shines best with chemistry and physics rather than theology, psychology, or economics.
IV. Conclusion
In conclusion, failing to distinguish between the natural and social sciences can lead to methodological challenges and misinterpreting results. However, methodological dualism guides us back to the university, that is, unity in diversity. The sciences are not a monolith. They each possess a unique identity with corresponding methods for describing creation. Thus, we must seek to understand how each of the sciences contributes to our overall knowledge of creation. The future of economics involves the freedom to study the nature of human action and the implications of individual choices and preferences.
NOTES
- Ludwig von Mises, “Social Science and Natural Science,” Journal of Social Philosophy & Jurisprudence 7, no. 3 (1942), 241 ↩︎
- Ludwig von Mises, “Social Science and Natural Science,” 241 ↩︎
- Ludwig von Mises, 241 ↩︎
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Murphy, Robert P. Choice : Cooperation, Enterprise, and Human Action. Oakland, Ca: Independent Institute, 2015.
Murphy, Robert P. Study Guide to Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008. https://web.archive.org/web/20241209203157/https://cdn.mises.org/Study%20Guide%20to%20Human%20Action%20A%20Treatise%20on%20Economics_2.pdf ; http://archive.today/CNJNt.
Mises, Ludwig von. “Social Science and Natural Science.” Journal of Social Philosophy & Jurisprudence 7, no. 3 (1942): 240–253.
Mises, Ludwig von. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. The Scholar’s Edition. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1949. https://web.archive.org/web/20241209203522/https://cdn.mises.org/files/2024-09/Human%20Action.pdf ; http://archive.today/qyLgp.