Maria Montessori

Praxeology goes far beyond rejecting specific empirical studies, it rejects the very concept of learning human behaviour from past data. Or, to quote Mises himself [1]:

> The subject matter of all historical sciences is the past. They cannot teach us anything which would be valid for all human actions, that is, for the future too. The study of history makes a man wise and judicious. But it does not by itself provide any knowledge and skill which could be utilized for handling concrete tasks.

He does make a difference between natural science and history, claiming that natural science carefully isolates elements in order to enable inference. That point would be thoroughly debunked by current AI systems, considering that by his definition these systems would be in the field of history.

Mises makes this distinction between natural science and history, because he can then claim that:

> The experience with which the sciences of human action have to deal is always an experience of complex phenomena. No laboratory experiments can be performed with regard to human action.

And since praxeology isn't simple enough to be criticized by natural science and that historical sciences have no say about current affairs, he rejects criticism from either field. This line of reasoning may have been tricky to attack in 1920, but it's completely obsolete in 2025.

[1]: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/greaves-human-action-a-tr...

Quoting Mises himself [1]:

> The experience with which the sciences of human action have to deal is always an experience of complex phenomena. No laboratory experiments can be performed with regard to human action. [...] Neither experimental verification nor experimental falsification of a general proposition is possible in its field.

> Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic [...] science. Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. [...] Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts.

Basically, Mises claimed that Praxeology brings prerequisite tools necesary to understand human action, and that these tools are axioms, not subject to being tested themselves. Praxeology is, to him, an algebra that must be true in order to be able to understand complex events such as economics.

I don't want to say how Mises would have reacted, but had he faced modern economics (for instance RCTs in the context of development economics) or machine learning, he would have been confronted with the fatal flaws of his theory, just like a time-traveling medieval doctor could not reasonably defend the theory of humours today.

[1]: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/greaves-human-action-a-tr...

Did you mean Steiner?

Before having a kid I never realized how powerful of a tool a TV or an iPad was in terms of (essentially) free babysitting.

Families where grandparents can afford to retire and / or move closer to their grandchildren are operating on an entirely different level financially. As are families where the parent or parents can work from home. As are families that can afford childcare which can easily cost as much or more than a mortgage in California at least. Even after public Kindergarten or TK becomes available these are mostly only half day coverage (again in CA) and you are completely on your own to figure out how to cover (pay for) the rest of the time if both parents work and there aren't other family members in the picture.

So in summary, I never would have realized that regardless of how much screen time you want your kid having the reality has shown itself to be that there is a direct correlation between relying on screen time and the financial standing of you and your extended family, for better or worse.

I was very lucky to have remote work when I had a kid, but my parents couldn't / can't afford to retire and that has had a huge financial impact on us. If I had an in-person job we would have had to rely a lot more on screens to fill in the gaps.

In any case no complaints I absolutely love having a kid and am glad to pay for good quality school / childcare and I don't really believe there's anything wrong with screen time anyway.

Watching 3-6 hours of TV a day after school while my parents worked and did whatever adults did in the 90's didn't seem to do as much harm to me mentally as I would have thought. It seems insane in retrospect.

It's hard not to give a smartphone to a kid if you have to work or just can't spend a lot of time with the kid. Kids are demanding of time and attention. So either you have enough time or you pay someone to play with your kid or you have to endure a lot of chaos a kid without a smartphone and a lot of time without attention can do (from screaming and crying to wreaking havoc in your household). Or you give them smartphone and they keep quiet and still and you can do what you need to do.

I'll add another that my sibling posts haven't - wealthy parents are more likely to be aware of the dangers. Doubly so for those working in tech.

My sister is out of work 50% of the time, her husband is out of work 90% of the time. Their combined yearly earnings are well under the median wage here.

They have 5 kids + 1 foster.

All have iPads. The eldest kid does double duty as nursemaid and has done since she was 7 or so.

Poverty = Kids iPad for me too. I dunno why. Its cheaper than childcare I guess.

I think low income family parents have to work more, sometimes multiple jobs to pay the bills so the kids end up with more screen time because maybe they have someone else watching them or they're alone depending on the age. If someone else is watching them it's easy to just give the kid a screen and they're not as concerned as the parents about the long term effects.

Also if you're a kid in a low income area where maybe it's not safe to go play outside or you need constant supervision to be safe you don't go out much and therefore screens become the default indoor play. My kids have a big backyard they can go out and ride bikes around and swingset and spaces to dig and play and get dirty in the backyard because I make enough to buy a house like that.

Wealthier parents can pay to have more free time to spend on activities with their children to the exclusion of screens.

It plays into the whole package of keeping children occupied after the au pair has driven them to and from expensive montessori private schools

That’s because Montessori is something that any school or daycare can call themselves, regardless of whether they adhere to the teaching philosophy or not. You need to look at just the set of schools that are AMS or AMI accredited.

My kid goes to a public Montessori school, so the tuition isn't much. It's also pretty clear what they do differently if you tour the classrooms.