You probably know more about economics than me (I'm just a mathematician), so I won't argue against you, but if I understand your two posts correctly, it seems like what you're describing is completely useless. If a model doesn't have predictive power then what is it good for?
I understand from your other post that the justification of Austrian "models"/"explanations" comes from their simplicity. Which I guess is some application of Occam's razor? But that makes no sense - the simplicity of a model on it's own is no indication of correctness. You always need some notion of the likelihood of the observed evidence under that given model. Otherwise, you can just say "all people make all decisions completely randomly" and that's the simplest model of all.
A completely non-predictive model has no real-world meaning, because it can't be used to effect reality. I suspect that Austrian models do effectively have some small predictive power - there is an implicit causal analysis that comes from the small element of qualitative evaluation of uncertainty, no doubt used instinctively by practitioners to decide whether an argument sounds plausible.
Anyway, it all sounds completely ridiculous. How is their method of choosing explanations any better than a witchdoctor deciding that thunder is a sign of the gods being angry?
I understand from your other post that the justification of Austrian "models"/"explanations" comes from their simplicity. Which I guess is some application of Occam's razor? But that makes no sense - the simplicity of a model on it's own is no indication of correctness. You always need some notion of the likelihood of the observed evidence under that given model. Otherwise, you can just say "all people make all decisions completely randomly" and that's the simplest model of all.
A completely non-predictive model has no real-world meaning, because it can't be used to effect reality. I suspect that Austrian models do effectively have some small predictive power - there is an implicit causal analysis that comes from the small element of qualitative evaluation of uncertainty, no doubt used instinctively by practitioners to decide whether an argument sounds plausible.
Anyway, it all sounds completely ridiculous. How is their method of choosing explanations any better than a witchdoctor deciding that thunder is a sign of the gods being angry?