βThe proof of a theory is in its reasoning, not in its sponsorship.β - Ludwig von Mises
Discussion
Far be it from me to question the great Mises, but wouldn't the proof of a theory actually be in it's demonstration as fact through experimentation, observation, and reproducibility?
It depends on the nature of the theory.
Suppose the theory is that all unmarried men are bachelors, or that 2+2=4, or (to take an actual example from Mises) that human action is aimed at some goal.
Can you imagine an experiment that could disprove any of these?
On the other hand, suppose the theory is that an electron has a certain mass, or that ice melts at a certain temperature and pressure. It is very easy to imagine an experiment that might disprove such a theory.
Would "all unmarried men are bachelors, or that 2+2=4" properly be called theories? I think those are better described as axioms. The example from Mises might be a theory that one could try to prove, however.
I did think that a "thought experiment" of the type Einstein liked might fit with Mises' statement, though.
They are tautological but not axioms
2+2=4 can be proven as a theorem of mathematics
Another example:
"Every effect has a cause"
Can you think of some way this could be tested?
Can you think of some way the human action claim can be tested?
A more familiar example:
"A binding minimum wage will result in higher unemployment than would otherwise have been the case"
Can you think of some way to test this?
You would have to apply and not apply the minimum wage to the same group of people at the same time (or perhaps you can find a large population of clones in identical circumstances).
Ok, I shouldn't have questioned the great Mises! π
I do still think that as a classical liberal he had too much confidence in the State, and didn't go as far as his student Rothbard.