Sunday, October 04, 2009

Responding to Noel Campbell, Part Deux

I cannot help joining Emily (and Art at DOL) in responding to Noel Campbell (Noel responds to Art here).

One should not be surprised that Noel doesn't "get it." He starts his first post by noting that he's "never read Human Action once, much less twice." Personally, I don't think the Misesian position is that extreme. My initial reading of HA was consistent with most of my undergraduate economics education (from a non-Austrian perspective). In fact, I would claim that Mises is simply a classical economist in many respects.

Here's a short reading list for folks like Noel who'd like to understand what it is that (at least some of) those crazy Austrians are doing (and, whether what they are doing classifies as science). Below the fold, I briefly outline a couple points that I take from these works and show how they relate to Human Action and Austrian Economics more broadly.

Mises, L. Human Action.
Polanyi, M. The Study of Man.
Polanyi, M. The Republic of Science.
Lavoie, D. The Interpretive Dimension in Economics: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxeology.
Rizzo, M. Mises and Lakatos: A Reformulation of Austrian Methodology.

Continued below the fold.

No comments: