i was reading some more Hoppe (ESAM) and some ideas are starting to “click” related to epistemology:
we can label knowledge as being *analytical* or *synthetic* and within those either *a priori* or *a posteriori*
*analytical* knowledge is like math or definitional truths – think “1+1=2” or “all bachelors are unmarried” – the statements are true via logic alone – no observation or measurement needed – which is what shows that they are *a priori* (as analytical a posteriori *isn’t* actually possible)
*synthetic* knowledge has more to do with facts related to the world – think “the sun rose today” or “mixing these two chemicals causes an explosion” – typically these require observation and experience – so most of them end up being *synthetic a posteriori*
but what about synthetic a priori??
the central claim of empiricism is actually that synthetic knowledge can *only* be a posteriori – no room is made for *synthetic a priori* – it doesn’t believe something can be informative about reality *and* necessarily true independent of specific experiences
praxeology challenges this directly!!
praxeology says that *synthetic a priori* knowledge does exist – these are statements that are necessarily true (you can’t coherently deny them without contradiction) *and* they tell us something real about the world – and it all starts from the action axiom
empiricism rejects this category and shoves all human action into the *synthetic a posteriori* bucket – which is why it obsesses with measuring, observing, and running regressions – instead of *reasoning* from the logic of action
(this doesn’t mean praxeology ignores data or measurement – it actually makes sharper distinctions – like class probability v/s case probability – more on that once i’ve read a bit further)
#praxeology #freedom #economics
