Talk:Praxeology

message: 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 don't think it's proper to state praxeology as synthetic a priori. For a better view on the basis of the logic of action see this: http://mises.org/journals/scholar/long.pdf
I will erase that part now, if that's 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 well-known neo-positivist (or almost that, anyway), praxeology passes the test.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.26.15.167 (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Synthethic a priori?

message: Quite an excellent article! --ShaunMacPherson 07:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Praise

message: What about any criticisms of von Mises and his praxeology? --Kiwibird 13:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard38.html footnote 5: For a typical criticism of praxeology for not using mathematical logic, see George. J. Schuller, "Rejoinder," American Economic Review 41 (March 1951): 188. enjoy. 128.128.98.46 (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It says in the article that people exchange goods or services that they both appraise to be of equal value.  If this is true, then why would they exchange them at all?  If a newspaper sells for 50 cents, does this mean that I hold the value of this newspaper at 50 cents?  If so, why would I buy it?  Inversely, if the printer values the paper at 50 cents, why would THEY sell it?  They wouldn't.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.4.24.181 (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: Some of the recent additions like those referring to the "PostKantian base" don't seem to add anything. Consider deleting? Rjljr2 01:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete recent additions?

message: It seems to me that the biggest thing missing in this article is the reason why neoclassical economics has become mainstream instead of this method. Until that information is added this article isn't of very much use. --Jayson Virissimo 05:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing something?

message: I think objectivity is missing from this article. Even the introduction is extremely dubious stating it is the "science of human action". Clearly this page is very pro-Austrian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.65.97 (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, Praxeology is a big part of Austrian economics isn't it? (and vice versa) Rjljr2 (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *Articles about a part of an economic belief shouldn't be pro- that belief Rowan9 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Lacking objectivity

message: The sentence "It is commonly referred to as a science, however this may be a misnomer because it does not appear to meet the guidelines for either empirical or formal sciences." should either be removed, or moved from the ingress to a separate section (Criticism?) and should be discussed seriously, and not used as mockery. They argue that it is a science because... Critics argue that... and so on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.67.8 (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lacking objectivity 2

message: The article says, "Like other Austrian and classical economists, he rejected the use of observation...". I'm not aware of classical economists rejecting observation. Of course, I'm not aware of lots of things. Anyway, I'd like a reference for that. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical economists and observation 

message: The article acknowledges that the term was first coined by Alfred Espinas, but doesn't even mention him in the main thrust of the article, let alone go into any details of his coining. I don't know anything about Espinas, so maybe he just coined the term and never did anything with it. Even if this is the case, it should be noted the context and intent of his coining. —Memotype::T 16:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Alfred Espinas 

message: I'm not sure the terminology translates well into English language, but at least in Germany "praxeology" would also refer to a sociologial school of thought oriented along social practices (reaching maybe from Garfinkel to Bourdieu). This should be disambiguated. -- 132.230.104.57 (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the difference may be that in Germany (and elsewhere in Europe?), praxeology just refers to the sociology of social practices, but in the English-speaking world, it only refers to Misesian praxeology, with all its unique assumptions. Mporter (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praxeology in sociology 

message: I scrapped the sentence about rank transform as it was still redlinked.  Don't know what he was talking about (maybe Friedman test?). kostmo (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  rank transform 

message: If praxeology treats the ends as neutral and applies analysis to the effect which the means have towards the ends then it isn't the full picture and psychology is another part of human action. Is the science of physics about the effects of physics (Like the effect of action)  or does it also include the reasons behind physics (reasons behind actions)? This is where "the science of human action" could confuse.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.116.95 (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The science of human action? 

message: Seems enough to justify link, without stating praxeology is pseudoscience: .— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 
:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Not listed. Would need RS to be listed. – S. Rich (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience Accusation 

message: I'm pretty sure the sentence "Praxeology also provides insights for the field of ethics" is incredibly non-neutral; as I understand the term, it can't be an "insight" unless it's true, and claiming that true moral beliefs come from a particular place is about as far from a neutral point of view as you can get.
Current text
   "Praxeology...is the deductive study of human action...
What is the source of this definition?  Praxeology is usually presented as a philosophy that seeks to explain the past and future evolution of society, never to my knowledge as an explanation of human action.  Human action in praxeology is as far as I know never something to be discovered for its own sake, but rather something to be observed in order to discover something more general. 
Mark.camp (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of objectivity 3 

message: I added an interwiki link to Praxéologie (in the French-language Wikipedia), and I noticed that the French-language article says nothing about Frenchman Louis Bourdeau, who appears prominently in this English-language article, but the French-language article instead prominently mentions Henri Fayol, about whom this English-language article says nothing. Biogeographist (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bourdeau and Fayol 

message: Any reason why the Polish school is introduced but not explained in the article? I think it could have a short section with the Austrian school, but I am not well-versed enough in the topic area to make that decision yet. Assopwill (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The presence of a section about the Austrian school but not the Polish school is likely due to the greater diffusion of Austrian-school ideas in the English-speaking world combined with the much larger number of English speakers than Polish speakers in the world. Look at the Polish version of this article, :pl:Prakseologia, and you will notice that there is no separate section on the Austrian school (although the Austrian school is mentioned). In contrast, the German version of the article, :de:Praxeologie (Wirtschaftswissenschaft), does not even mention the Polish school. I don't know if that is because the Polish-school sources have not been translated into German? Polish-school sources have been translated into English, so they deserve a place in the English article. Biogeographist (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish School mention 

message: As it stands, this article has precisely one half-sentence describing praxeology itself, and continues with a few pages of historical trivia around the use of the word.
Suggesting that the article be renamed 'History of the word Praxeology' is the most neutral critique I can make of it.
62.78.247.108 (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the subject of this article is praxeology, not history of the word praxeology; but, as you can see at the top of this talk page, it is a "start"-class article. That means it's just a beginning and the content has yet to be filled out by an eager army of volunteer editors that has so far failed to appear. Biogeographist (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to History of the word Praxeology? 

message: I reverted your edit for a very important and valid reason: It is referenced to primary sources, and Wikipedia is based on secondary sources per WP:PSTS, which says: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." I have not been able to locate secondary or tertiary sources that indicate that a section on Evgeny Yegorov's view is significant enough for a section in this article and is not undue weight per WP:UNDUE.
In this edit summary you said: "It is surprising that there is a reluctance to delve into the essence of the ideas of the Russian School of Praxiology and conduct a scientific discussion." This statement may evince a misunderstanding of the role of Wikipedia. The point of the policy of no original research is that Wikipedia merely reports the scientific discussion that is already published in reliable secondary sources; Wikipedia does not conduct its own scientific discussion. Wikipedia is not for publicizing views that have not already been discussed in reliable secondary sources. Biogeographist (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary sources needed for removed section 

message: While tracking down a reference for the most recent edit, I discovered that much of the Praxeology#Origin and etymology section closely paraphrases a published article:
:
I tagged the section as . Biogeographist (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much of the "Origin and etymology" section closely paraphrases a published article