Spencer DID what Mises IMAGINED, and Rothbard ADVOCATED. In other words, Spencer

Spencer DID what Mises IMAGINED, and Rothbard ADVOCATED.

In other words, Spencer used observation, evolution and incentives to explain the world of man. He practiced ‘praxeological’ reasoning not as an excuse maker like rothbard did: to justify what should be different. But Spencer used ‘praxeological’ reasoning to explain why people do what they do.

***This is the best example of the difference between the jewish cosmopolitan justificationary method of trying to construct law as a set of commands in order to act in discord with nature, versus the anglo enlightenment empirical method of observing and explaining what exists in nature – and how to act in accord with nature.***

I work this way also. I find some empirical thing. I do my research. I try to explain it as a series of operations. If I can then that’s a truth candidate. If I can’t then it isn’t.

What I do NOT do, is engage in the 20th century fallacy of correlation, unless I can also determine causation.

Statistics assist us in hypothesizing. Actions tell us truth.