Mason Gaffney wrote:
> I see two contradictions in what I observe or understand of Mises.
>
> 	1. He rejects the use of mathematics in economic analysis, while
> also adopting the pure mathematicians' preference for pure reason over
> observation and testing. Is this consistent?
>   
Three responses, Mason:

a. For what purpose would one want to use observation and testing in 
economics? Two purposes come to mind: policy and history. For 
observation and testing to be useful for POLICY purposes, human beings 
would have to behave in a way that one could learn to predict on the 
basis of observations of past behavior. Do you believe that inventive, 
creative, and imaginative actors would allow their behavior to be 
manipulated by a government policy maker? Or is it not more likely that 
non-policy makers would be able to manipulate the policy maker? So what 
is the point of observations and hypothesis testing if one aims to use 
the results as a basis to manipulate behavior? This is not to deny that 
observation and testing may be useful in economic HISTORY. But Mises was 
mainly interested in evaluating policy arguments.

b. Each human being, including you I presume, uses logic in making 
choices about what is best. This is not all he uses but he does use 
this. He also assumes that those with whom he deals use logic. What more 
sensible means would you suggest for building models of interacting 
human beings than to use logic and to assume that the beings you are 
modeling also use logic? There is nothing unusual about Mises's use of 
logic as applied to relevant economic situations (which is what you must 
mean by "pure reason" if you are referring to Mises) in building images 
of market interaction. Nor is there anything unusual about the logic 
that economics students use when they build models of markets.

c. Mises does not reject the use of mathematics in economics. He rejects 
efforts to represent the dynamic, distinctly human character of action, 
the entrepreneurship, with mathematics. Here he has a great deal of 
company from both mainstream economists and non-economists.

> 	2. Those who write in Mises' name (e.g. the Lew Rockwell group at
> Auburn) draw definite - some would say extreme - conclusions about specific
> applied public policies in the real world, on which they write most
> acerbically and critically. Can one reconcile this with a theory not set in
> a specific historical context?
>   
Your observation is of such a general nature that I would not dare 
venture a response except to say that you should ask them.

Pat Gunning