I just finished watching Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s lecture Praxeology: The Austrian Method, which is less of an exposition of praxeology than a critique of logical positivism, which is fine though I much prefer the former.
Anyway, I’ve a major issue with Hoppe’s critique: Is Hoppe critiquing logical positivism in the first place, or is he critiquing something else?
What Hoppe did was that, of all the logical positivist philosophers, he picked Karl Popper and his views to critique, because “his views became. . . the most influential ones.” Now that’s the issue. Karl Popper was no logical positivist. Indeed, Popper, whose own epistemological philosophy was something called critical rationalism, was critical of logical positivism.
(Hoppe mentions the principle of falsifiability a lot, which is of course, famously associated with Popper and his philosophy; and which is Popper’s counter-solution to the logical positivists’ principle of verifiability, which Popper views as, according to Wikipedia, “too strong a criterion for science”.)
It seems to me that instead of critiquing logical positivism, Hoppe was critiquing Popper’s critical rationalism, but I’d have to read more to have a clearer idea.
Republic of Letters 