My life as an Austrian economist: my philosophical vision and the critique of scientism

As with any story, it is helpful to start at the beginning. And in my case, all my beginnings regarding Austrian economics can be found at Grove City College. How I ended up in Grove City is an extremely improbable journey of zigzags and zags, the probability of which defies all calculation. I was not a focused student in high school or even when I started my college career. My interests were focused elsewhere and my dreams were focused on a life far removed from anything related to the ‘life of the mind’.

Once I got the hang of studying economics, my professor, Dr. Hans Sennholz my study path with his entertaining and persistent lectures (40 years later I can still hear his voice) and the books he encouraged me to read, including those by Frederic Bastiat. Economic sophismsHenry Hazlitt’s Economics in one lesson and that of Milton Friedman Free to choosebut also that of Carl Menger Principles of economicsEugen Bohm-Bawerk’s Capital and interest, and Ludwig von Mises Theory of money and credit, SocialismAnd Human action. Before I graduated, I read Adam Smith’s The well-being of nationsJean-Baptist Say’s TreatiseDavid Ricardo’s PrinciplesJohn Stuart Mills PrinciplesF.A. Hayek’s The road to serfdomIsrael Kirzner’s The economic point of view and Murray Rothbard’s People, economy and state. Sennholz also made sure we read Marx, Keynes, Veblen and Galbraith. I must also acknowledge that in addition to these classic works, I have read everything that Sennholz himself had published (esp The age of inflation) and became a regular reader of The Fremanand other writings from Foundation for Economic Education staff.

My philosophical vision and the criticism of scientism in the study of man

My religion and philosophy teacher Dr. Reed Davis introduced me to the work of Michael Polanyi, and in particular the issue of presuppositions in scientific research. I saw broader applications and a connection between what I learned about economics and the philosophical discourse that Polanyi points us to when we think about the study of human beings. In Sennholz’s presentation, economics was one human science and was corrupted by the unwarranted intrusion of the methods of the natural sciences into its domain. Mises (and Hayek) had good reasons for this position, but Polanyi gave me additional reasons as I read and learned from him.

My appreciation for Polanyi would only increase in subsequent years when I was appointed research assistant to Don Lavoie. Lavoie was busy finishing two books – Rivalry and central planning And National economic planning: What’s left – both would be published in 1985. Lavoie blended Austrian economics with the growth of knowledge literature in the philosophy of science, including Polanyi. So my early exposure to Polanyi now proved to be an advantage in my work with Lavoie.

The great strength was that Polanyi didn’t just tell us How study, but What study – the growth and use of knowledge in society. This, of course, directly affects Hayek’s research program. It turns out that Polanyi was also a critic of the socialist planned economy and the Soviet system in particular, as were Mises and Hayek. So many points emerged during that first year of my graduate studies that coincided with what I had wanted to learn during my time in Grove City.

Economics at the university level is a technical discipline, comparable in many respects to engineering or a form of social physics. But economics as practiced at the Austrian School of Economics is a philosophical science and more akin to the humanities than to science. I had to learn to live in two worlds at once academically. My education at Grove City College and the guidance I received at George Mason prepared me for this. And hopefully others can see that example in my writings and teaching for decades to come.

Analytical puzzles and economic sciences

As much as I was drawn to economics as a philosophical science, the puzzles of economics as understood by my colleagues in the field also intrigued me. The most fundamental puzzle was understanding how markets work. The textbook presentation did not seem to explain how the market economy came about, but only what the optimal outcome would be if the market did all its work. There was no real theory in the textbook to work of economic forces, just a presentation of the consequences that come from having economic forces worked. This was very unsatisfactory to me and it became an obsession to fix in my mind and in the minds of others. Sennolz introduced me to this field in my youth, and I have never been bored of thinking, talking, or writing about the science of economics and its history, method, and application.

I am a fan of economics and economists, just as I am a lifelong fan of the New York Yankees. In fact, I consider the Austrian School of Economics to be the New York Yankees of economics. The Austrians have arguably won more major debates than any other school of thought methodsstreit; the socialist arithmetic debate; monetary theory and policy debates; the methodological disputes over excessive formalism, naive empiricism and aggregation problems; and the benefits of trade, migration and development for the betterment of the world’s least advantaged and most vulnerable populations. Unlike the Yankees, however, many do not recognize the championship pennants of the Austrian economy. This fueled my curiosity to understand how such a gap between perception and reality could persist among economic scientists. The sociology of the profession has therefore been as much a subject of my attention as the substantive contribution to economics what I called main economy. Mainstream economics reflects the current fads and fashions in science, while mainstream economics reflects the enduring substantive principles that science teaches us about how the world works. Austrian economists explain how the world works, mainstream economists explain how the economics profession works – these are different things. Learning that was a long and difficult awakening process.

My philosophical interests, analytical interests and sociological interests are all connected. And once again I found my roots at Grove City College, in this case reading Walter Miller A song for Leibowitz, which has taught me that knowledge is not just recycled, but instead moves in fits and starts, with periods of progress punctuated by periods of regression. Knowledge processes move through time like a corkscrew: progress is being made, but sometimes we only cycle back to continue. Knowledge can be lost and must be found again before we can make progress. Economics is particularly sensitive to this problem because, as Hazlitt has learned Economics in one lessonA healthy economy is built through long chains of reasoning that many cannot or do not want to follow, and in the gaps, vested interest groups will exploit the situation to push their favored narrative in hopes of furthering their agenda. This was indeed the case in the period 1920-1980 when we debated the merits of socialist economic planning – despite the evidence of economic deprivation and political tyranny. In the 1980s, the evidence against the socialist experiment mounted to such an extent that even the most stubborn minds had to concede the points raised by Mises and Hayek. My early work as an economist was precisely on this subject, and my first three books describe the history, operation, collapse and transition of the socialist economy in Eastern and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union.

How could economists misinterpret such a big experiment?

Academic life

How can you pursue a career in the life of the spirit? It is connected to the commitment to be guided by curiosity and to adopt an unquenchable thirst for learning throughout your life. You should have the freedom to ask questions that may not have answers, let alone easy answers.

It is the recognition that knowledge is growing in society (think of the corkscrew), and that the more you know, the more you know that you don’t know. Teaching allows us to communicate with young, curious, and compassionate minds eager to understand the world and work to repair a broken world. Our job as teachers is to tap into that curiosity, to demonstrate to every generation how the tools of economic reasoning can be indispensable tools in unleashing their curiosity and disciplining their thinking so that they can effectively pursue the compassion that they have and the desire to do good. in the world.

Conclusion

My life as an Austrian economist has been wonderful, and I hope to continue learning and working for decades to come. If you understand the Austrian economy, it is a growth industry. We are continuously building a better future and the promise of more and more scientific victories in the years to come. Being part of that heritage is a privilege.

[Editor’s note: You can read like Boettke- and with Boettke- in our No Due Date subscription book club.]