This article is an in depth investigation of Ludwig von Mises' economics. Von Mises made a critical error similar to that of some Objectivists. From the article: "Mises thus rejected as invalid any empirically-based methodology for economics." In other words, he said that economic analysis could be derived completely from logic, without any sanity check based on the experience of actual observation.

From the article:
"As in any a priori argument, in Misesian theory the inferences drawn from starting axioms by deductive logic are necessarily true or apodictically certain. No empirical evidence is necessary to demonstrate the truth of Mises’ theories, as the truth of the inferences is necessarily known in advance of experience. Even when the real world provides significant countervailing empirical evidence contradicting an inference in Mises’ system, it is irrelevant and can be explained away (Barry 1986: 60)."

Also from the article, "As Mises says,
[sc. praxeology] aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification and falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts." The problem with this is that rarely does the objective reality of real life match the conditions "implied in its assumptions and inferences".

Yet more from this great article: "Its (Praxeology's) statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts” (Mises 1949: 32)." I will argue that anything that is not subject to verification or falsification a) cannot be called "scientific", and b) cannot ever be compared to Rand's metaphysical standard of "objective reality".

From Rand at http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/obj...

"Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears."

The metaphysics of objective reality comes BEFORE the epistemology of reason in Rand's philosophy. Consequently, any logical argument or theory derived from such logical argument that fails to meet the standard of objective reality should be rejected. In science, hypotheses are developed based on experimental observations of objective reality, with the theory being developed later in a manner consistent with the scientific observations.

An all too common problem in this forum that several Objectivists are guilty of is placing philosophy over science. While I wholeheartedly agree that a scientist must have a proper philosophical base to work from, placing reason as superior to objective reality literally puts the proverbial cart before the horse.

One of the overarching themes of Dale Halling's "Source of Economic Growth" was that the economic theories of Hayek and von Mises were flawed and inconsistent with Objectivism. The reason that the analysis of both Dale and the author of the above article was correct was that the assumptions and inferences in some of the Austrian economists' theories were, in some cases, inconsistent with the objective reality of life. Go out and buy Dale's book. It was an honor to review it.

I am reminded of the axiom that "To err is human, but to really screw up, you need a computer" or I would add the mind of a genius. I agree that reality can not always be explained by the same theories and demonstrated by the same experiments but it is still reality. It is like Newtonian physics which is fine for most observable physical phenomena but we need quantum physics when we enter the realm of atoms and protons. To me, if a theory cannot be proven by empirical evidence either the theory is incorrect or the experiment is being conducted incorrectly. Science does not exist outside of reality and logical conclusions have to be based on reality. Science and logic are tools by which we explain and predict real outcomes not what should have been but isn't. But then if you are smart enough you can make up a name for it that seems to imply that it must be.