praxeology is one big logical fallacy since it is built upon a fallacy. look the praxeological statement 1. “(ALL) human action is purposeful behavior” and the fallacious proof by contradiction that follows in this persons video on the methodology of praxeology. first she states a totally different statement, 2. “if you TRY TO DENY that (ALL) human action is purposeful, YOU would be acting purposely yourself (in that instance)“. praxeology claims this is a performative contraction and therefore proves 1. but this is either a fallacy or deception. what 2. actually proves is that 3. “one cannot DENY that SOME of their own action is purposeful “
notice that 3 is not an equivalent statement to 1, the original statement praxeology was set out to prove.
analogy: its as if praxeology claimed “every person that ever existed is still alive” therefore “if you try to deny this claim you would prove you yourself are alive and therefore prove the original claim since this is true for all people who try to deny it” the fallacy here is that it only captures the set of people that it is true for and ignores all the people that are dead that cannot argue against it. so in context of human action, purposeless people would never deny the statement “all human action is purposeful” even if it were false, but that doesnt mean “all human action is purposeful” is true.
its somewhat related to statistical response bias. only the ones that can respond, respond, but that isnt sufficient to show that all people can respond. imagine i conduct a sample where the hypothesis being tested is that “everyone has a phone” and then restrict my sample to a phone survey where only people can call in to contribute to the data. i will necessarily conclude, using the fallacious “logic” in the video, that all people have phones, because those who call in cannot deny they have a phone and those who dont have phones cannot call in.
it still is a possibility (no disproof) that a person can act purposefully and argue in one instance then purposelessly act in the next instance. so a person arguing against the statement “all human action is purposeful” is insufficient to prove ALL his own action is purposeful let alone the rest of humanity.
the logical negation of ” all human action is purposeful” is “there exists human action that is not purposeful”. one can make this argument and not commit the “performative contradiction” since the person making the argument is not restricted to their own action and purpose. one can argue that someone else is acting without purpose and not commit a contradiction
now you can just declare “all human action is purposeful” as an axiom, and i have no problem with this. but you cannot say its a valid theorem, or sound argument.
there are sound reasons why austrian “praxeology” is on the fringe of any conventional peer reviewed academics. praxeology is a non-rigorous form of math and logic, and should not be taken seriously