The synthetic a priori. Rejoinder to Linsbichler

Abstract

Linsbichler is a gifted economist and philosopher. He delves mightily and thoroughly into the difficult thickets of basic praxeology, the methodology of the Austrian school of economics. Not content with merely probing the meaning and importance of the synthetic a priori, he pushes further into the very justification of this foundational element of Austrianism. I learned a lot from reading this splendid essay, most of with which I enthusiastically agree. However, there are a few divergences between the two of us, and the present paper is devoted to exploring them. My procedure in this response is one of mentioning numerous quotations from the author, interspersed with my own comments and reactions. That is because I greatly appreciate this gifted economist’s contribution to Austrian methodology.
What are the specifics? One error is that he does accurately distinguish between analytic, empirical, and synthetic a priori. Another is his misunderstanding of “human action”. My debating partner opines that Mises (1998) merely suggests that human being act. In actual point of fact in the of this latter author, that is the very title of his most famous book, and contains the very core of praxeological economics. Then Linsbichler fails to accurately distinguish between mere behavior and human action. Further there is a dispute over the source of ideas. My learned colleague maintains it is empirical. I demur. He is of the opinion that empirical criticisms can be relevant to praxeological findings. I attempt to correct him on this matter. He takes the position can something can be “mildly aprioristic”. I demonstrate that this concept is an all or none phenomenon; no gradations.