Abstract
Praxeology, the Austrian School’s methodological foundation, asserts that economic laws derive a priori from the axiom of purposeful action, independent of empirical validation. While most modern economic schools reject this approach, praxeology remains influential in economic methodology and policy debates. This paper presents a systematic critique, highlighting its methodological weaknesses, definitional ambiguities, and reliance on unfalsifiable axioms. It introduces novel arguments, strengthens existing critiques, and examines praxeology’s applicability in light of psychological and neuroscientific findings. Additionally, it connects praxeology’s limitations to broader methodological issues in neoclassical economics, questioning its viability as a foundation for economic inquiry.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
