Current debates between behavioural and orthodox economists indicate that the role and epistemological status of first principles is a particularly pressing problem in economics. As an alleged paragon of extreme apriorism, the methodology of Austrian economics in Mises' tradition is often dismissed as untenable in the light of modern philosophy. In particular, the defence of the so-called fundamental axiom of praxeology-"Man acts."-by means of pure intuition is almost unanimously rejected. However, in recently resurfacing debates, the extremeness of Mises' epistemological position has been called into question. Rather than directly engaging in these exegetical discussions, this paper aims to substantiate the possibility and plausibility of conventionalist defences of praxeology per se. The proposed shift includes settling for an analytic fundamental axiom and acknowledging the prima facie tenability of other research programs than praxeology. Since conventionalist praxeology is only moderately aprioristic, mainstream economists and philosophers might be more likely to engage in fruitful discussions with those Austrian scholars who elaborate pragmatic arguments for praxeology instead of invoking pure intuition.

No abstract

No abstract

Uebel, and all others who supported me by critically challenging my ideas and/or otherwise. I gratefully acknowledge funding from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): W 1228-G18 and the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

No abstract