Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Epistemic Scarcity: The Economics of Unresolvable Unknowns

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that AI cannot perform the central functions of economic coordination — interpreting ends, discovering means, signalling subjective value — and names 'epistemic scarcity' as the new binding market constraint.

desk verdict A fluent Austrian polemic that names 'epistemic scarcity' but never earns its categorical AI claim; the formal model trips on the undefined state space, and several citations don't check out. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01483 v1 pith:QTE3ZISK submitted 2025-07-02 econ.GN cs.AIcs.CYphysics.hist-phq-fin.EC

Craig S Wright This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.GNcs.AIcs.CYphysics.hist-phq-fin.EC
keywords epistemicscarcityAustrianeconomicspraxeologyAIandeconomiccoordinationentrepreneurialforesightalgorithmicgovernancesubjectivevaluepost-truthmarkets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that AI systems are categorically incapable of performing the central functions of economic coordination: interpreting human ends, discovering the means to satisfy them, and communicating subjective value through prices. Its diagnosis is that contemporary markets suffer not from scarce information but from 'epistemic scarcity' — the condition in which the marginal cost of obtaining verifiable, decision-relevant knowledge dominates every other cost, because truth is not hidden but drowned in engineered noise. Drawing on the a priori theory of action at the root of Austrian economics, the paper argues that entrepreneurial foresight is an imaginative act of creating possible futures rather than an extrapolation from data, so machines can select but cannot choose, can optimise but cannot value. It formalises the condition with a scarcity index and a four-part typology of opacity, then draws the political conclusion that algorithmic governance, like Soviet cybernetics, mistakes calculation for coordination. If the argument holds, the debate over AI is not a technical dispute but a choice between computational social control and reasoned human autonomy.

What carries the argument

Two devices carry the argument. The first is the action axiom: the Misesian claim, sharpened by Rothbard and Hoppe, that all human conduct is purposive action and that this is a synthetic a priori truth no data can displace — which is what makes the paper's capability claim categorical rather than empirical. The second is the epistemic scarcity formalism: a gradient $E_s = \partial K / \partial C$ measuring the cognitive or institutional cost of acquiring accessible knowledge, with $\partial^2 K / \partial C^2 < 0$, and a Scarcity Index $S_i = 1 - |\mathrm{Dom}(P_i)| / |\Omega|$, where $\Omega$ is the state space of relevant world conditions, held to be indefinable and non-enumerable under imposed opacity. The paper's typology of opacity — stochastic (the world outpaces cognition), semantic (signals lose their referents), strategic (noise is injected adversarially), and recursive (the trustworthiness of frames is itself unknowable) — does the load-bearing work of separating epistemic scarcity from ordinary Knightian uncertainty: under epistemic scarcity the agent cannot construct the state space over which probabilities would range, so Bayesian updating has nothing to update.

What would settle it

A controlled market experiment would settle the categorical claim: an autonomous system given no human-assigned objective beyond a general resource constraint would have to originate an end, discover a profit opportunity that no human participant anticipates, and realise a profit by trading against real counterparties — one success falsifies the thesis that AI cannot interpret ends and discover means. A second, softer test is statistical: if epistemic scarcity is real, proxies such as volatility in expert consensus, reputational entropy, or belief-updating lag should measurably predict coordination failure (for example, wider price dispersion) in low-verifiability markets, and the paper's Scarcity Index should be computable for real agents, which Section 13.3 concedes it currently cannot be.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the core functions of economic coordination — the interpretation of ends, the discovery of means, and the communication of subjective value through market signals — are irreducibly human acts, and that algorithmic systems, however complex, cannot originate normativity, interpret institutional change, or bear responsibility. It frames decision-making not as optimisation under constraint but as purposive action under uncertainty, and it treats the price system as an epistemic artefact whose coordinating power depends on the semantic fidelity of its signals; when signal integrity collapses under strategic obfuscation, spontaneous order degenerates into a simulacrum of order. To name this new condition it introduces epistemic scarcity as a new economic primitive, formalised as the gradient $E_s = \partial K / \partial C$ with diminishing returns to epistemic investment, and a Scarcity Index $S_i = 1 - |\mathrm{Dom}(P_i)| / |\Omega|$ that tends to unity as the agent's domain of coherent belief collapses. The paper's closing claim is civilisational: if AI cannot perform the interpretive labour of markets, then attempts to automate economic coordination — from AI ethics frameworks to algorithmic planning — replicate the error of the Soviet cybernetics project, and the Austrian tradition of action, subjectivity, and spontaneous order is the only coherent alternative to computational control.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, asserted from the action axiom rather than demonstrated, is that interpreting ends, discovering means, and valuing are categorically human acts that no algorithm could ever instantiate — and the paper's own formal index presupposes well-defined state and belief sets ($\Omega$ and $\mathrm{Dom}(P_i)$) that its central argument declares indefinable and non-operationalisable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • No AI system can function as an economic actor, entrepreneur, or moral agent; proposals for AI-run markets, algorithmic monetary policy, and computational social credit inherit the failure of Soviet cybernetics because they mistake calculability for coordination.
  • Ethical AI frameworks built on fairness, accountability, and transparency metrics embody constructivist rationalism: they impose paternalistic constraints and violate voluntary exchange, so attempts to encode morality in code misunderstand both ethics and economics.
  • Information abundance becomes a source of market failure: when verification costs rise asymptotically relative to the cost of producing noise, price signals decouple from underlying realities and coordination fails from semiotic excess, not ignorance.
  • A new class of epistemic entrepreneurs emerges — agents who profit by verifying, authenticating, and curating claims — making reputation markets and trusted signalling essential infrastructure of exchange.
  • Because AI cannot bear responsibility, liability for algorithmic harm falls to the human actors who design and deploy the systems, which the paper develops into proposals for epistemic property rights and adversarial verification rather than centralised speech regulation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A weaker, testable version of the categorical claim follows from the paper's own terms: AI should perform well in economic domains with stable, enumerable state spaces (logistics, pricing under risk, games) and fail where ends must be interpreted, so the boundary between computable and non-computable economic function could be mapped empirically domain by domain even though the paper states its th
  • If epistemic scarcity is a genuine economic primitive, then the proxy measures the paper lists as embryonic — volatility in expert consensus, reputational entropy, lag times in belief updating — should predict coordination failure, such as wider price dispersion, in low-verifiability markets like finance, media, and health care; this is an empirical extension the author leaves to future work.
  • The argument implies a strategic asymmetry the paper does not draw out: in an economy of manufactured opacity, the scarce resource is not information but trustworthy interpretation, so investment in verification infrastructure — cryptographic provenance, adversarial reputation markets, staked truth-bonding — becomes a profit opportunity rather than a regulatory cost.
  • The framework predicts that verification will rival production as the site of economic activity: as AI lowers the cost of plausible falsehood, human intermediaries who stake their reputations on claims should earn scarcity rents, a structural shift the paper gestures at with its 'epistemic entrepreneurs' but does not quantify.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces "epistemic scarcity" as a new economic primitive, formalizes it with a Scarcity Index, and uses it to argue that AI systems are categorically incapable of interpreting ends, discovering means, and communicating subjective value through market signals. It also critiques FAT-style AI ethics from an Austrian praxeological standpoint, proposes epistemic property rights and related governance mechanisms, and concludes with a civilizational claim about the defense of truth. The argument relies heavily on Misesian apriorism, Hayekian coordination, and Hoppe's argumentation ethics.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would mark a sharp boundary on the scope of AI in economic coordination and would challenge much of current algorithmic governance and AI ethics research. The paper does synthesize a wide literature and raises substantive questions about algorithmic opacity, institutional trust, and the epistemology of markets. However, the formal model is not well-formed, the central distinction is stipulated rather than demonstrated, and the paper itself concedes that its core construct resists operationalization. Those problems are load-bearing because the categorical AI conclusion rests on the formalism and on the select/choose dichotomy. The manuscript therefore does not currently deliver the significance it promises, although the questions it poses are worth further study.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1–5.2] The formal model is internally inconsistent. Section 5.1 declares Ω 'indefinable' and 'non-enumerable,' yet Section 5.2 defines the Scarcity Index as S_i = 1 − |Dom(P_i)|/|Ω|, which requires cardinalities for Ω and Dom(P_i). If Ω is indefinable, its cardinality is not defined and the index is not a well-formed quantity. The condition 'Im(f) ⊂ ∅' in Section 5.1 is also not a substantive condition: if f is undefined, Im(f) is undefined, and if f is defined on a nonempty Ω, Im(f) is nonempty and cannot be a subset of the empty set. Section 13.3 concedes that epistemic scarcity 'resists reduction to static data points' and cannot currently be operationalized; that concession does not repair the formalism, because the problem is that the formal quantities are undefined, not merely difficult to measure. As a consequence, the Scarcity Index cannot support the asserted distinction between ordinary uncertainty and epistemic scarcity on which the paper's human/machine conclusion depends.
  2. [§4.2 and §5.4.1] The central claim that machines can 'select' but not 'choose,' and cannot 'originate conceptual categories,' is stipulated rather than demonstrated. No operational test, impossibility proof, or account of what evidence would count against the claim is provided. Because the conclusion is embedded in the definitions of 'choose,' 'value,' and 'end,' the case studies cannot refute it; they can only be interpreted as simulacra. An unfalsifiable thesis of this kind cannot carry the abstract's categorical assertion that AI is 'categorically incapable' of performing economic coordination. A weaker claim about current AI systems might be defensible, but the paper does not provide the argument needed to support the stronger claim.
  3. [§6.2 and §8.2] The paper's own evidence works against its categorical conclusion. Section 6.2 cites financial-market fluctuations triggered by AI-generated false headlines, and Section 8.2 treats AI hallucinations as economically consequential. These examples show algorithmic outputs affecting price signals and market beliefs. To reconcile this with the claim that AI cannot 'communicate subjective value through market signals,' the paper invokes a distinction between authentic signals and simulacra, but no criterion for authenticity is defined independently of the conclusion. This is a load-bearing gap: if AI-generated content moves prices and coordinates expectations, then the claim that AI is categorically outside economic coordination requires a stronger argument than the stipulated select/choose distinction.
  4. [§3.1 and §12.1] The use of Hoppe's argumentation ethics to declare all denials of the action axiom 'self-refuting' is a dialectical strategy that insulates the framework from empirical evidence. Even if the performative-contradiction argument were accepted for the action axiom, the paper does not show how it licenses the additional premises that ends are non-computable (Section 4.3) and that machines cannot originate norms (Section 12.1). Those premises are doing the work in the AI conclusion, and they are asserted rather than proved. The reader is therefore asked to accept the essay's central claim on the basis of definitions, not on the basis of the formal model or case studies.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1 and throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including the missing space in 'challengingprevailingassumptions' in the abstract and the misspelling of 'façade' in Section 8.3; the manuscript needs careful proofreading.
  2. [§1.3 and §5] The expression 'Es = ∂K/∂C' is presented without derivation and is not connected to the Scarcity Index S_i; the paper should either integrate these formal proposals or remove the unexplained derivative notation.
  3. [§5.1] The phrase '∃ epistemic scarcity' is malformed notation and should be replaced with prose.
  4. [§13.3] The limitations section is honest, but it directly contradicts the formal claims made in Section 5; the paper should acknowledge that contradiction and explain how the formal model can be interpreted if epistemic scarcity cannot be operationalized.
  5. [Reference [2]] Reference [2] is an unpublished MSc dissertation cited repeatedly as empirical authority for load-bearing claims about Dark Triad traits and manipulation; the paper should rely on independent, peer-reviewed evidence for such claims.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The paper's categorical AI-impossibility claim is built into its definitions: 'choose' is stipulated as a human act, the formal Scarcity Index is defined over a state space the paper itself calls indefinable, and argumentation ethics is used to seal off counterexamples.

  1. self definitional [Abstract (p.1); Section 4.2 'Discovery, Catallaxy, and the Ignorance Condition']
    "AI systems are categorically incapable of performing the central functions of economic coordination: namely, the interpretation of ends, the discovery of means, and the communication of subjective value through market signals. ... Machines can select; they cannot choose. They can optimise; they cannot value."

    The central conclusion is not derived from the formal or empirical machinery; it is an analytic consequence of the definitions. 'Choose' and 'value' are stipulated as purposive, subjectively-valuing human acts (Sections 2.1 and 4.2), so by construction no machine can 'choose'. The categorical AI-impossibility claim is the definition restated. No independent criterion or test is offered under which a machine could in principle choose rather than select.

  2. self definitional [Section 5.1 'Conceptual Distinction from Uncertainty'; Section 5.2 'Mathematical Formalism'; Section 13.3]
    "under epistemic scarcity, Ω is not merely unquantified—it is indefinable... It is not that the agent cannot compute probabilities; rather, they cannot define the relevant set over which such probabilities would meaningfully range. ... Scarcity Index: S_i = 1 − |Dom(P_i)| / |Ω|."

    Epistemic scarcity is defined as the condition in which Ω is unconstructible, Dom(P_i) is empty or ill-formed, and no coherent mapping f: Ω → K_i exists. The claimed 'far-reaching implications' (collapse of rational expectations, mechanism design, and welfare theorems) are restatements of this defining assumption, not results of it. The index then divides by |Ω| even though Ω is declared non-enumerable, so the formal apparatus is undefined exactly where the argument needs it. Section 13.3 concedes epistemic scarcity 'resists reduction to static data points.' The formal model therefore cannot independently ground the human/machine boundary; that boundary is imported from the action-axiom definition.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section 3.1 'Argumentation and the Inescapability of Action Categories']
    "Any attempt to deny the truth of the action axiom presupposes the very action categories it seeks to reject. Arguing against the necessity of purposive action is itself a purposive act, thereby validating the axiom by performative necessity."

    This transcendental argument insulates the paper's premise from counterexample: every denial is reclassified as a purposive act and therefore as confirming the axiom. Since the paper's AI claim depends on treating 'action' as an exclusively human category, the argumentation-ethics move seals the conclusion by ruling out in advance any challenge to that categorization. This is not an empirical or formal derivation but a self-sealing dialectical device that makes the categorical AI-impossibility claim unfalsifiable.

full rationale

The paper's central thesis—that AI cannot interpret ends, discover means, or communicate subjective value—is not the product of a derivation chain from independent premises. Section 4.2 states the conclusion directly as a definitional dichotomy ('Machines can select; they cannot choose'), and Section 2.1 defines the economic agent as a purposive human actor whose ends are subjective and non-computable. On those definitions, the impossibility of machine coordination is analytic rather than demonstrated; no operational test, impossibility proof, or independent criterion distinguishes 'selecting' from 'choosing'. The formal model in Section 5 does not repair this: epistemic scarcity is stipulated to be the condition in which the state space Ω is 'indefinable' and 'non-enumerable', and then the Scarcity Index S_i = 1 - |Dom(P_i)|/|Ω| is written down using the cardinality of that very set, so the index is undefined in the regime it purportedly measures. Section 13.3 concedes the construct cannot be operationalized. The appeal to Hoppe's argumentation ethics in Section 3.1 makes the thesis self-sealing by declaring any denial of the action axiom performatively self-refuting, so no counterexample can register. The self-citation to the author's unpublished dissertation [2] for the Dark Triad claims is a weakness, but it is not load-bearing for the AI-impossibility claim, so it is not the main basis of the score. Because the central claim is forced by the paper's own definitions rather than by evidence or derivation, the circularity score is 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The paper does not fit parameters to data, so the free-parameter list is empty. The deeper problem is that the formal model introduces non-operational functions (K, C) and undefined cardinalities (|Ω|, Dom(P_i)), meaning the central quantities cannot be instantiated at all. The arguments instead rest on Austrian domain axioms, most of which are asserted rather than defended.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Misesian action axiom: all human action is purposive behavior aimed at alleviating felt uneasiness.
    Section 2.1 takes this as apodictically certain and does not argue for it.
  • domain assumption Economic laws are synthetic a priori and immune to empirical falsification.
    Section 3.2 relies on Rothbard and Hulsmann to reject probabilistic modelling as epistemically incoherent.
  • domain assumption Hoppe's argumentation ethics proves that any denial of the action axiom is self-refuting.
    Section 3.1 uses this transcendental argument to dismiss positivist challenges.
  • ad hoc to paper Entrepreneurial ends are non-computable and cannot be reduced to pattern recognition.
    Section 4 defines entrepreneurial foresight as ontologically distinct from computation, which is the exact premise needed to prove AI incapability.
  • ad hoc to paper The state space Ω can be both indefinable and yet have a cardinality |Ω| used in formulas.
    Section 5.1 declares Ω unconstructible while Section 5.2 uses |Ω| in the Scarcity Index, an inconsistency never resolved.
invented entities (4)
  • Epistemic scarcity
    purpose: A new economic primitive defined as Es = ∂K / ∂C
    No measurement procedure is given; Section 13.3 concedes it resists operationalization.
  • Scarcity Index S_i
    purpose: Proxy for the collapsing bandwidth of epistemic traction
    It requires |Ω| and Dom(P_i), which are undefined for the non-enumerable state spaces the paper postulates.
  • Epistemic entrepreneurs
    purpose: Agents who arbitrage credibility gaps and profit from verification
    Described only in conceptual terms; no empirical characterization or testable prediction is supplied.
  • Epistemic property rights
    purpose: Policy proposal for provenance, attribution, and liability of information
    A normative institutional proposal, not an entity with independent evidentiary support.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Epistemic Scarcity: The Economics of Unresolvable Unknowns." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QTE3ZISK

@misc{pith2026250701483,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Epistemic Scarcity: The Economics of Unresolvable Unknowns},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QTE3ZISK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01483}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a praxeological analysis of artificial intelligence and algorithmic governance, challenging assumptions about the capacity of machine systems to sustain economic and epistemic order. Drawing on Misesian a priori reasoning and Austrian theories of entrepreneurship, we argue that AI systems are incapable of performing the core functions of economic coordination: interpreting ends, discovering means, and communicating subjective value through prices. Where neoclassical and behavioural models treat decisions as optimisation under constraint, we frame them as purposive actions under uncertainty. We critique dominant ethical AI frameworks such as Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT) as extensions of constructivist rationalism, which conflict with a liberal order grounded in voluntary action and property rights. Attempts to encode moral reasoning in algorithms reflect a misunderstanding of ethics and economics. However complex, AI systems cannot originate norms, interpret institutions, or bear responsibility. They remain opaque, misaligned, and inert. Using the concept of epistemic scarcity, we explore how information abundance degrades truth discernment, enabling both entrepreneurial insight and soft totalitarianism. Our analysis ends with a civilisational claim: the debate over AI concerns the future of human autonomy, institutional evolution, and reasoned choice. The Austrian tradition, focused on action, subjectivity, and spontaneous order, offers the only coherent alternative to rising computational social control.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth

    Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich KH Ecker, and John Cook. “Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era”. In: Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 6.4 (2017), pp. 353–369

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Dark Triad Traits, Epistemic Exploitation, and Strategic Manipula- tion

    Craig Wright. “Dark Triad Traits, Epistemic Exploitation, and Strategic Manipula- tion”. MSc (Psychology) Dissertation. Arden University UK, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    The Market for

    George A. Akerlof. “The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism”. In: The Quarterly Journal of Economics 84.3 (1970), pp. 488–500

    work page 1970

  4. [4]

    Robert J. Shiller. Narrative Economics: How Stories Go Viral and Drive Major Economic Events. Princeton University Press, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Sunstein

    Cass R. Sunstein. Republic.com. Princeton University Press, 2001

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Information Disorder: Toward an interdis- ciplinary framework for research and policymaking

    Claire Wardle and Hossein Derakhshan. “Information Disorder: Toward an interdis- ciplinary framework for research and policymaking”. In: Council of Europe Report (2017). DGI(2017)09

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Simulacra and Simulation

    Jean Baudrillard. Simulacra and Simulation. Semiotext(e), 1983

    work page 1983

  8. [8]

    The Ecology of Attention

    Yves Citton. The Ecology of Attention. Polity Press, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Media manipulation and disinformation online

    Alice E Marwick and Rebecca Lewis. “Media manipulation and disinformation online”. In: Data & Society Research Institute (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning

    John Sweller. “Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning”. In: Cognitive Science 12.2 (1988), pp. 257–285

    1988

  3. [11]

    Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Commu- nities

    Stanley Fish. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Commu- nities. Harvard University Press, 1980

    1980

  4. [12]

    Recent contributions to the mathematical theory of communica- tion

    Warren Weaver. “Recent contributions to the mathematical theory of communica- tion”. In: Scientific American 181.1 (1949), pp. 11–15

    1949

  5. [13]

    Crises of the Republic

    Hannah Arendt. Crises of the Republic. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973

    1973

  6. [14]

    Israel M. Kirzner. Competition and Entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press, 1973

    1973

  7. [15]

    Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox

    Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten. Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. MIT Press, 2002

    2002

  8. [17]

    Human Action: A Treatise on Economics

    Ludwig von Mises. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Yale University Press, 1949

    1949

  9. [18]

    Reputation, Signaling, and Epistemic Capture in Algorithmic Sys- tems

    Kevin Bryan. “Reputation, Signaling, and Epistemic Capture in Algorithmic Sys- tems”. In: Journal of Economic Perspectives 35.3 (2021), pp. 112–134

    2021

  10. [19]

    Playing for Real: A Text on Game Theory

    Ken Binmore. Playing for Real: A Text on Game Theory. Oxford University Press, 2007

    2007

  11. [20]

    A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe. A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989

    1989

  12. [21]

    In Defense of “Extreme Apriorism

    Murray N. Rothbard. “In Defense of “Extreme Apriorism””. In: The Southern Economic Journal 23.3 (1957), pp. 314–320

    1957

  13. [22]

    Facts and Counterfactuals in Economic Law

    J¨ org Guido H¨ ulsmann. “Facts and Counterfactuals in Economic Law”. In: The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. Vol. 6. 3. 2003, pp. 33–56

    2003

  14. [23]

    The Role of Entrepreneurship in the Market Process

    Jeffrey M. Herbener. “The Role of Entrepreneurship in the Market Process”. In: The Review of Austrian Economics. Vol. 24. 2. 2011, pp. 149–156. 41

    2011

  15. [24]

    Realism and Austrian Economics

    Roderick T. Long. “Realism and Austrian Economics”. In: The Review of Austrian Economics 20.4 (2006), pp. 253–264

    2006

  16. [25]

    Lachmann

    Ludwig M. Lachmann. Capital and Its Structure. Institute of Economic Affairs, 1976

    1976

  17. [26]

    George L.S. Shackle. Epistemics and Economics: A Critique of Economic Doctrines. Cambridge University Press, 1972

    1972

  18. [27]

    Friedrich A. Hayek. New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978

    1978

  19. [28]

    O’Driscoll and Mario J

    Gerald P. O’Driscoll and Mario J. Rizzo. The Economics of Time and Ignorance. Basil Blackwell, 1985

    1985

  20. [29]

    Mises and Hayek Dehomogenized

    Joseph T. Salerno. “Mises and Hayek Dehomogenized”. In: The Review of Austrian Economics 6.2 (1993), pp. 113–146

    1993

  21. [30]

    The Economics and Ethics of Private Property

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe. The Economics and Ethics of Private Property. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993

    1993

  22. [31]

    Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news

    Gordon Pennycook and David G. Rand. “Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news”. In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 147.12 (2018), pp. 1865–1880. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000465

    2018 doi

  23. [32]

    Reputation management: A strategic approach to stakeholder relations

    W. Timothy Coombs. “Reputation management: A strategic approach to stakeholder relations”. In: Corporate Communications: An International Journal 27.2 (2022), pp. 234–248. DOI: 10.1108/CCIJ-03-2021-0038

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    Trust and transparency in health communication: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic

    Emily Oster. “Trust and transparency in health communication: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic”. In: Health Affairs 42.3 (2023), pp. 456–462. DOI:10.1377/ hlthaff.2022.01247

    2023

  25. [34]

    The spread of true and false news online

    Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. “The spread of true and false news online”. In: Science 359.6380 (2018), pp. 1146–1151. DOI:10.1126/science.aap9559

    2018 doi

  26. [35]

    Deepfakes: A new threat to elections?

    Emilio Ferrara. “Deepfakes: A new threat to elections?” In: First Monday 25.7 (2020). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v25i7.10699

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    Disinformation’s spread: bots, trolls and all of us

    Kate Starbird. “Disinformation’s spread: bots, trolls and all of us”. In: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. New York, NY: ACM, 2019. DOI: 10.1145/3359225

    2019 doi

  28. [37]

    Narcissism, disagreeableness, aggression, and self-esteem: A structural equation modeling approach

    Brad J. Bushman et al. “Narcissism, disagreeableness, aggression, and self-esteem: A structural equation modeling approach”. In: Journal of Research in Personality 44.4 (2010), pp. 478–484

    2010

  29. [38]

    The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy

    Delroy L. Paulhus and Kevin M. Williams. “The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy”. In: Journal of Research in Personality 36.6 (2002), pp. 556–563

    2002

  30. [39]

    The knowledge gap: How information deficits persist in a well-informed society

    Rebecca Lind and Daniel G. McDonald. “The knowledge gap: How information deficits persist in a well-informed society”. In: Communication Theory 30.3 (2020), pp. 231–250

    2020

  31. [40]

    Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil

    Hannah Arendt. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Viking Press, 1963

    1963

  32. [41]

    The crisis of expertise

    Gil Eyal. “The crisis of expertise”. In: Polity 51.3 (2019), pp. 402–425

    2019

  33. [42]

    The Power of the Powerless

    Vaclav Havel. The Power of the Powerless. M.E. Sharpe, 1978

    1978

  34. [43]

    Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power

    Byung-Chul Han. Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power. Verso Books, 2017

    2017

  35. [44]

    The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power

    Shoshana Zuboff. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs, 2019. 42

    2019

  36. [45]

    Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

    Neil Postman. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Penguin Books, 1985

    1985

  37. [46]

    On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?

    Emily M. Bender et al. “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?” In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (2021), pp. 610–623

    2021

  38. [47]

    AI and the Everything in the World Problem

    Inioluwa Deborah Raji et al. “AI and the Everything in the World Problem”. In: Communications of the ACM 64.10 (2021), pp. 28–30

    2021

  39. [48]

    The Soviet Economic System

    Alec Nove. The Soviet Economic System. George Allen & Unwin, 1986

    1986

  40. [49]

    Soviet Economic Statistics and Planning: Problems and Legacy

    Michelle Alexopoulos. “Soviet Economic Statistics and Planning: Problems and Legacy”. In: Journal of Economic History 64.2 (2004), pp. 475–481

    2004

  41. [50]

    Economics of Shortage

    J´ anos Kornai. Economics of Shortage. North-Holland, 1980

    1980

  42. [51]

    The Use of Knowledge in Society

    Friedrich A. Hayek. “The Use of Knowledge in Society”. In: American Economic Review 35.4 (1945), pp. 519–530

    1945

  43. [52]

    Towards a New Socialism

    Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell. Towards a New Socialism. Spokesman Press, 1993

    1993

  44. [53]

    Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution

    Ludwig von Mises. Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution. Yale University Press, 1957

    1957

  45. [54]

    The Market for “Lemons

    George A. Akerlof. “The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism”. In: The Quarterly Journal of Economics 84.3 (1970), pp. 488–500

    1970

  46. [55]

    Thaler and Cass R

    Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press, 2008

    2008

  47. [56]

    The Ethics of Influence: Government in the Age of Behavioral Science

    Cass R. Sunstein. “The Ethics of Influence: Government in the Age of Behavioral Science”. In: Cambridge University Press (2016)

    2016

  48. [57]

    Trust and Rationality in Economics

    Tom Baker and Stefano DellaVigna. “Trust and Rationality in Economics”. In: Annual Review of Economics 2.1 (2010), pp. 747–771

    2010

  49. [58]

    Manipulative Agents and the Epistemology of Market Dynamics

    Yossi Arieli and Noa Feldman. “Manipulative Agents and the Epistemology of Market Dynamics”. In: Journal of Economic Psychology 67 (2018), pp. 91–103

    2018

  50. [59]

    Digital Enclosure: Capitalism, Surveillance, and the Internet

    Edward Lorenz. Digital Enclosure: Capitalism, Surveillance, and the Internet. Verso, 2021

    2021

  51. [60]

    Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems

    Elinor Ostrom. “Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems”. In: American Economic Review 100.3 (2010), pp. 641–672

    2010

  52. [61]

    Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles

    C. Thi Nguyen. “Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles”. In: Episteme 17.2 (2020), pp. 141–161

    2020

  53. [62]

    Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy

    Reuben Binns. “Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy”. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (2018), pp. 149–159

    2018

  54. [63]

    Automation bias and decision support

    Eric Johnson and David Schkade. “Automation bias and decision support”. In: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 28.2 (2004), pp. 95–107

    2004

  55. [64]

    The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate

    Brent Daniel Mittelstadt et al. “The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate”. In: Big Data & Society 3.2 (2016), pp. 1–21

    2016

  56. [65]

    The hidden cost of automation: Trust erosion in algorithmic decision systems

    Ben Green and Yiling Chen. “The hidden cost of automation: Trust erosion in algorithmic decision systems”. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2019), pp. 1–12

    2019

  57. [66]

    Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing

    Miranda Fricker. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press, 2007

    2007

  58. [67]

    Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks

    Julia Angwin et al. “Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks”. In: ProPublica (2016). URL: 43 https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal- sentencing

    2016

  59. [68]

    The Social Construction of What? Harvard University Press, 1999

    Ian Hacking. The Social Construction of What? Harvard University Press, 1999

    1999

  60. [69]

    Simulacra and Simulation

    Jean Baudrillard. Simulacra and Simulation. Translated by Sheila Faria Glaser. Original work published 1981. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994

    1981

  61. [70]

    Epistemic Trespassing and the Ethics of Expertise

    Kristina R. Miller. “Epistemic Trespassing and the Ethics of Expertise”. In: Synthese 200.3 (2022), pp. 1–23. DOI: 10.1007/s11229-021-03188-4

    2022 doi

  62. [71]

    Scott F. Aikin. Epistemology and the Regress Problem. Routledge, 2011

    2011

  63. [72]

    Rothbard

    Murray N. Rothbard. The Ethics of Liberty. Human Studies Press, 1982

    1982

  64. [73]

    Friedrich A. Hayek. Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 1: Rules and Order. University of Chicago Press, 1973

    1973

  65. [74]

    Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in All Realms

    Walter Block. “Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in All Realms”. In: Journal of Libertarian Studies 22.1 (2008), pp. 1–24

    2008

  66. [75]

    The Age of Surveillance Capitalism

    Shoshana Zuboff. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs, 2019. 44 Appendix A: Clarifying the Framework of Truth Within the context of this paper, the term “truth” does not refer to an abstract meta- physical category detached from operational criteria. Instead, it d...

    2019

  67. [76]

    In praxeology, truth claims correspond to the necessary implications of the action axiom, not to empirical states of the world

    Correspondence Theory: Traditional Austrian praxeology does not abandon the idea that propositions must map onto real phenomena, but it redefines the nature of that mapping. In praxeology, truth claims correspond to the necessary implications of the action axiom, not to empiri...

  68. [77]

    Hoppe’s argumentation ethics reinforces this by showing that even the denial of such axioms presupposes their truth in the very act of denial

    Coherence Theory: Praxeological systems exhibit coherence insofar as the entire structure of economic reasoning must be non-contradictory and consistent with the axiom of action. Hoppe’s argumentation ethics reinforces this by showing that even the denial of such axioms presup...

  69. [78]

    This is not instru- mentalism in the Deweyan sense, but a conditional heuristic grounded in subjective action and bounded rationality

    Pragmatic Theory: Within the entrepreneurial function, truth becomes operational: the propositions and interpretations that best allow agents to anticipate, coordinate, and profit under uncertainty are, functionally, the most valid. This is not instru- mentalism in the Deweyan...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.