I HAVE IT RIGHT Just going over Bruce Caldwell’s work on Praxeology and feeling

I HAVE IT RIGHT

Just going over Bruce Caldwell’s work on Praxeology and feeling very confident. Time to go see him this year. As far as I know I have rescued praxeology from the pseudoscientific fringe. Praxeology is a failed attempt at economic intuitionism / operationalism, and all sciences are consistent, and operationalism is an extension of (or as Ayelam Valentine Agaliba says, consistent with) falsification. All knowledge is theoretical. The means by which we imagine theories is irrelevant, and their survival of criticism is why they are warrantable (true). Science, if we add in both cost and morality (which haven’t been necessary for the physical sciences) is then the moral discipline of speaking truthfully, and philosophy, science, and morality are consistent and complete (synonyms). As such law, when requiring the full suite of scientific criticisms:

And there is but one universal moral principle:

(a) truthfully stated

….(i) internally consistent (logically tested)

….(ii) externally correspondent (evidentially tested as meaningfully predictive and/or explicative)

….(iii) existentially possible (operationally defined)

….(iiii) falsifiable and falsified (negatively tested)

….(v) fully informed (complete)

(c) productive

(d) warrantied

(e) voluntary exchange

(f) free of negative externality

Outstanding issues:

1) “calculability”: the prohibition on pooling and laundering, is the monetary equivalent of the prohibition on loading and framing. In my current conception this is

included in operational definitions, but I think I must address numbers, money and prices specifically in order to prohibit political ‘discretion’ and ‘general funds’.

2) Writing it out as legal construction rather than philosophy.

Then it’s on to work on institutions. And I can leave ‘Truth’ and ‘Austrian Econ’ behind me.