How to Debunk Argumentation Ethics and Praxeology 4 dummiez

Argumentation Ethics and Praxeology are pseudo-logically based disciplines that attempt to deceive people who have no formal training in logic. The purpose of this video is to present a brief but effective argument that shows the absurdity of the foundations of Argumentation Ethics and Praxeology.

Argumentation Ethics and Praxeology rely on the fallacious proof by performative contradiction.  This sleight of hand logical “proof” involves making a statement, conflating the statement with a completely different trivial statement, proving the trivial statement, and then claiming to have proven the original more substantial statement.

Argumentation Ethics makes the statement “EVERYONE ALWAYS owns themselves” then fallaciously equates this with the trivial statement “you cannot deny YOU own yourself IN THE MOMENT ONE DENIES IT” 

Praxeology makes the statement “ALL human action is purposeful” then fallaciously equates this with the trivial statement “one cannot deny SOME of THEIR OWN action is purposeful”

The statement “ALL x is y” is not logically equivalent to “SOME x is y”.  The first statement is a universal statement that applies for all “x” at all times.  The second is a much more trivial existential statement that applies to some “x”.  Universal statements are much harder to prove logically because one must prove the case for all x.  an existential statement is validated if the statement is true for at least one x.

now the logically ignorant person may be tempted to argue that these “performative contradiction” arguments work by induction and are true for all people. but they dont realize when you change the statement to a denial claim (“one cannot deny one’s own…”) then the argument only applies to those who ARE ABLE TO RESPOND.  because the term “cannot” refers to either committing the “performative contradiction” OR the fact that one literally CANNOT respond/deny . the later is what argumentation ethics and praxeology totally ignore.

This fallacy is identical to statistical response bias. If i first set out to prove the statement “ALL people have phones in ALL INSTANCES” with a sample constructed from a phone-in survey, i can easily come to the fallacious conclusion that the statement is true. proving the statement, “people who call in cannot deny THEY THEMSELVES have phones IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE” is insufficient to prove “ALL people have phones in ALL INSTANCES”

one can ask, “if egoutism is a proponent of liberty from government, then why give the tools to debunk a school of thought that has similar goals?”  My answer to this my goal is inherently different from anarcho-capitalism in that i only want freedom from government, not all aggression.   more importantly, not only do goals have to justified, but if one is concerned with convincing intelligent people for the long term,  you must make sure the methodology in reaching those conclusions is unassailable.  egoutism, not argumentation ethics, praxeology, upb, or objectivism is the ONLY viable long term economic morality. it applies formal mathematical logic instead of sophistry and wordy rationalizations.


2 thoughts on “How to Debunk Argumentation Ethics and Praxeology 4 dummiez

  1. I replied to you on Facebook with this but I thought I should post it here as well.

    A few clarifications:

    Praxeology is the name for the field that studies human action as is. It was created & differentiated from other social sciences by Mises with his inspiration coming from Menger’s “Investigations”.

    Thymology is psychology
    Cattallactics is economics

    Cattallactics aka economics is a sub category of Praxeology. Praxeology does not deal with economics solely.

    Ok onto the topic
    “Praxeology makes the statement ‘ALL human action is purposeful’ then fallaciously equates this with the trivial statement ‘one cannot deny SOME of THEIR OWN action is purposeful'”

    “Human Action is purposeful behavior” – pg. 11 of Human Action.

    “All” is not there & Mises explains that Praxeology doesn’t deal with behavior that is reflexive or unconscious behavior.
    He also sets out three prerequisites for action:
    1) Incentive to act is uneasiness
    2) Imagining a more satisfactory state of being
    3) Expectation that action can change uneasiness
    “These are the general conditions of human action” – pg. 14 of Human Action.

    He also states that newborn children & those born with or have acquired defects are not in the category of acting being & are therefore not subjects of study in Praxeology.

    So let’s apply this to you. You obviously are not an animal, newborn or mentally handicapped. You writing the blog post doesn’t fall under the categories of reflexive or unconscious behavior for obvious reasons. So you fit the definition of acting man.

    Since you are an acting man let’s see if you fulfill the three prerequisites.
    1) You are writing to debunk Praxeology & Argumentation ethics so those two concepts & the people who expound them must put you in a state of uneasiness.
    2) You probably imagined that spreading this debunking post would turn people away from the two concepts therefore reducing or possibly eliminating followers of the two concepts which would reduce your uneasiness
    3) You have the expectation that your action (writing the blog post & recording a video) can affect a change.

    So you are making a performative contradiction.


    1. did you watch my video and understand it? because youre not addressing the issue. the quantifier “all” must be there or else his statement is meaningless if its only some.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s