Synthethic a priori  Differentiations such as synthetic a priori have long been dismissed by wittgenstein Not even Mises clearly uses that definition to the contents of praxeology sometimes referring to it as analytical or whatever since he mostly dismissed the question as irrevelant So what i mean is i dont think its proper to state praxeology as synthetic a priori For a better view on the basis of the logic of action see this httpmisesorgjournalsscholarlongpdf I will erase that part now if thats ok  By the way about the criticisms i read here regarding if praxeology is science or not It is of course Even using criterials from Popper a wellknown neopositivist or almost that anyway praxeology passes the test