This post is a call for help. Please contribute to the discussion.
The goal is to determine the best way to dissect Propertarianism in order to break it into chunks that are digestible. Do you have any ideas as to the best way to do this?
The thought is to start with operationalism and pseudoscience and relate it to economics. I have watched ‘A Century of Mysticism‘ a number of times. It has taken me 3 sittings to begin to understand where CD is going with operationalism.
I have searched ‘operationalism pseudoscience’ and have yet to find anything that can succinctly define the problem. This page does a good job of showing how the scientific method is insufficient for arriving at knowledge or truth, because the scientific method is inductive reasoning and there is a problem with induction:
I think that CD is getting at this problem: If we induce a number of axioms, we may be able to build a model that works logically, but is flawed underneath. For example, Newtonian physics works on human scale but fails at the quantum level or the galactic level. And I see that reducing to operations seems to get rid of the problem of induction, because we are dealing only with observable truths (contextualized at a given scale) and not trying to induce their causation. If we try to induce the laws of nature from Newtonian observation, our inductions are fundamentally wrong on some levels. If we instead move to operations, we side-step the problem of induction.
The above is my current understanding of the problem/solution. Maybe I have it wrong.
When I search Propertarianism.com for ‘operationalism pseudoscience’ I get a number of hits, but none of them seem to help me process what CD is getting at. For example, this post:
The above post is about philosophy and history, really but is not concrete enough for me to be able to figure out how to use it. There are a number of posts that are similar in nature, but none are concrete enough for me to grasp. In A Century of Mysticism I get so much more concrete information to put me on the trail, because CD gives concrete examples of how he uses operationalism. The problem is that there is then no concrete relation to Misesian economics. Also, in the search linked above, I cannot really find any understandable explanations of operationalism in the way the CD uses it.
The assertion as I understand it is: Libertarian/Misesian economics is a pseudoscience because it uses induction (scientific method) rather than operationalism.
If this assertion is true, then what are specific examples of inductions in Misesian economics which are incorrect? Proof needed, concrete examples needed.
In the given examples (to the above question) of false induction, how can that conception be replaced by operations?
I cannot seem to grasp the problem or its solution outside of concrete examples. I am not even sure I understand the problem correctly.
I believe that what I am seeking (to understand Propertarianism) is proof of logical induction errors in Misesian economics and proof of how these errors can corrected using operationalism. This should prove to me that I actually understand the problem (pseudoscience in economics) and the solution to it the problem (operational economics). The goal is to develop a functional ability to independently apply the theory to concrete problems. If this problem/solution concept is understood correctly, then it should be possible for those who understand it to develop concrete solutions from the basic concepts, or at least follow examples given by others.
Currently, I am unable to do this.
Do you think I am on the right track?
Thanks for your help!