THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDEPENDENT AND ACADEMIC BLOGGERS AND A NOTE ON PRAXEOLOG

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDEPENDENT AND ACADEMIC BLOGGERS

AND A NOTE ON PRAXEOLOGY

Um. It’s not complicated:

1) Academics make more complex errors in logic. Independents tend to not possess sufficient scope of knowledge to render the opinions that they do. So they make more simplistic errors out of ignorance. Most logical errors I find in academic work are due to methodological constraints within a narrow discipline that erroneously attribute causation within that paradigm.

2) Academic errors are most often driven by accepted political beliefs. Popper and Kuhn’s warning about paradigmiatic traps is a greater problem in economic science than it is in the physical sciences. Independent writers tend to vary more from the accepted paradigm. Thats why they’re interesting. The current problem with academic work is its nearly exclusive reliance on aggregates, and the fact that aggregates reinforce the goals of totalitarian state action.

3) Academics are more likely to rely upon multiple sources of empirical data, and unfortunately, independents are not. Independents are more likely driven by the desire of something to be true, and to rely upon confirmation biases. Although, I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. It’s a natural process of research and development.

WHY PRAXEOLOGY?

Praxeology protects against necessary errors of information loss in any process of aggregation. Aggregation exposes limits to praxeological analysis.

There are plenty of people working with collections of data. There are too few praxeologists working on the interpretation of data. That is because analysis of aggregates hides involuntary transfers, and praxeological analysis exposes involuntary transfers. As such, Praxeology is a libertarian, and Aggregates a totalitarian methodology.

That’s why there are fewer praxeologists. In academica, it’s against the status quo.

WHAT WOULD ACADEMIC RESEARCH LOOK LIKE WITHOUT THE MAJORITY RULE STATE?

If the ‘government’ were constructed to allow exchanges, not majority rule, then academics would search for beneficial exchanges between groups rather than optimums that are always for the benefit of one group at the expense of another.

In other words, solutions proposing an optimum are always “BAD” . Because they deprive us of that which could be mutually beneficial means even if we have independent ends.