Joe Salerno on The Austrian Movement

Joe Salerno in a review essay on Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism. There are so many interesting parts of Brian's story, but Joe focuses on one aspect of that story and one that happened to rely on some interviews over the years that Brian conducted with me when I was teaching at NYU and at GMU.  Joe criticizes my interpretation of the Austrian movement.

I am sure I am guilty of loose lips and also of stating things in an interview less thoughtfully than I hopefully would in an written article, but the context of the discussion between Brian and myself was always one of "how is it that such a powerful set of ideas from Mises and Hayek could have such little impact within the economics profession at large?"  I tried to provide arguments which self-reflect on the behavior of Austrian economists themselves, rather to blame others for our failures.  I don't deny that there are formidable forces to overcome, but I also think this is a very competitive business and "we" have not competed very well.  And I think the evidence is around for us to consider who is competing well or not --- you either publish in professional journals or not; you either get tenure track appointments or not; you either get promoted or not; you either place PhD students or not; you either publish with top publishing houses or not.

It is not that the evidence is murky on this, nor it is really murky that this is the criteria to use in determining whether you are making an impact as a scientific movement in political economy.

Anyway, Joe Salerno --- who I respect tremendously for both the quality of his mind and his deep commitment to Austrian economics --- finds my statements objectionable.  There should be a fair hearing of views within Austrian circles, so for those of you who haven't read them check them out.  I could indeed be wildly off-the-mark, and if so, perhaps Joe will have a better answer to Brian's question as to why Austrian's have found it so difficult to advance their ideas when in fact on both an empirical (collapse of Keynesianism and collapse of real existing socialism) and theoretical (collapse of macroeconomics, and the development of new institutionalism and resurgency of political economy) level the world of academic economics has moved in such a positive direction.

Comments

[John]

I haven't read Radicals for Capitalism yet and read his review already. I feel like I might be biased now (it was pretty harsh). However, two pages does not make (or usually ruin) a book.

[Brian Pitt]

I just read Salerno's comments. And yes, they were pretty harsh! Although I have enormous respect for Salerno, being a frequent reader and a huge fan of classical and contemporary Austrian and libertarian work, it is no wonder why many Austrians are perceived as polemicists!

Having not read the book, I will leave with this question: Wasn't GMU ranked one of the top economics programs, in the South, a few years back?

[Mike]

Yes, that is all well and good Dr. Boettke. But, you seem to want to change the discussion toward the tired subject of the so-called failure of austrian economics in the academic realm. Forget that red herring for the moment as it is debatable and austrian economics is making great strides in educating people who really care about economics. Mainstream economics is nothing more than an intellectual circle jerk that has no real bearing on the real world of human interaction, innovation, and productivity.

Can you refute the substance of the review regarding normativity, methodology and those austrian scholars who were not influenced by GMU, your cult-like attitudes outside the norm of academia, and the influence of the "Kochtopus" on your thoughts and strategy?

[Peter Boettke]

Brian,

Yes, GMU was ranked as the top research productivity university in the south in economics a few years ago. And we have 2 Nobel Prize winners on our staff. But Joe is right that in 1982, GMU was an upstart university with a brand new PhD program. Joe in fact was invited to join the faculty at that time, but turned down that offer to stay at Rutgers.

But the GMU ranking is subject to various interpretations. The NRC ranks GMU in the 40s of departments, that is higher than places like Florida State, Clemson, Georgia and Auburn. But that was done a long time ago. A new ranking will be out shortly and we will see where GMU lands.

Other recent studies, such as by the graduate student at UBC that is reported at PhD.net ranks GMU lower. So rankings depend on who is doing the study, and what criteria they employ. Usually the NRC is considered the best ranking.

To Mike ---

I am not changing the discussion --- the interviews (multiple ones over several years) were always in that context of (a) how did I get interested?; (b) what is stopping these great ideas from advacning in academia?

I stand by what I said in response to those questions, though if I were to write up a serious history of the modern Austrian school of economics, and its fate within modern economics, I would not doubt be more careful and would have discussed more traditional areas of research within economics that modern Austrians are engaged in (such as money and macro). BTW, just to put things in perspective --- the modal economist writes exactly 0 articles on methodology, everyone of the people that Joe lists have written considerably more methodology than their colleagues in their respective universities. To claim otherwise is to simply reveal and misunderstanding of what is considered methodology in economics.

On my cult-like attitudes --- I don't consider them cult-like, though if I truly was a cult member I couldn't admit them! I do consider them both youthful enthusiasm combined with a very competitive nature.

Let me be clear, I am still enthusiastic about the vision that inspired me to be an economist: Austrian economics, radical libertarianism, and revisionist history. This vision is fundamentally Rothbardian, and my entire career has been spent attempting to figure out how to advance that vision in an academic world that is hostile on almost every margin to that vision. Also I am still extremely competitive. I want Austrian economics to WIN, to control the AER, JPE, QJE, to teach at Harvard, Chicago, Stanford, even MIT. I cannot believe we haven't achieved that, and I refuse to put the blame on others. Because as any competitive person will tell you, if you want to get better you have to look in the mirror and take responsibility for failures on yourself. Taking that responsibility is a first step toward the improvements required.

Finally, for young Austrians the criteria of what it takes to win this game are objective and obvious for anyone IN THE GAME. My point in the interviews was, in my perhaps poor way, to tell younger people to GET IN THE GAME.

Pete

[Steven Horwitz]

As far as the accusation of "cult-like" behavior goes, let me just note that Joe Salerno is currently the president-elect of the Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, an organization founded by "GMU Austrians" including Pete. Joe's contributions to Austrian economics are deserving of that recognition, whatever I might think of his analysis of Pete's comments.

By contrast, when Pete spoke at a Mises Institute event a few years ago, he was the recipient of hisses and raspberries from members of the audience.

For Joe to throw around the accusation of "cult-like" smacks of some serious chutzpah.

[Matt C.]

I found Dr. Salerno’s comments to be, well, bitter. It seemed as though he had an ax to grind. I have watched and listened to his lectures and I have found them to be very educational and I enjoyed them very much. Unfortunately this article has left a bad taste, for lack of yet another and better cliché metaphor. I was willing to give him a pass over the previous debate here on this blog and at the Mises blog, but this time of attack could have been handled very differently. He seems to take everything personal. I don’t know what you did to him when you were younger Dr. Boettke but it seems you have really pissed him off and he hasn’t forgiven you yet.

I would also like to point out that in Tyler Cowen’s interview with Russ Roberts found here: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/09/cowen_on_your_i.html
He states that he has come to really appreciate the ideas of subjective value from his Austrian roots.

[Peter G. Klein]

Steve, that is not quite correct. Pete has spoken at several Mises Institute events (most recently, the Austrian Scholars Conference in 2003) and has been treated no differently from any other conference participant. You're referring to an incident, about ten years ago, when Pete was a roundtable participant (along with Roger Garrison, Larry White, Salerno, and myself) in a session on the future of Austrian economics. At one point in his remarks Pete described Ludwig Lachmann as an exemplar of "philosophical sophistication," to which an audience member -- a single audience member -- responded with an audible raspberry. There were no hisses or catcalls or anything else. The implication that Pete (or anyone else) is unwelcome at the Austrian Scholars Conference is pure fiction. I'm sure Pete will be happy to confirm this.

[Matt C.]

I just thought of something that I should have also added. It seems as though Dr. Salerno does not take into consideration the environment in which Dr. Boettke finds himself when he critizes the “miraculous” change in approach. From what I understand from reading both Dr. Salerno’s critique and this very blog Dr. Boettke was heavily influenced by Hans Sennholz in his undergraduate years and then your graduate years under the influence of yet another Austrian. Then Dr. Boettke goes to NY and then comes back to GMU with the addition of Buchannan and Smith. Also the additions of Williams, Cowen, Boudreaux, Roberts and Caplan. This would seem to create an environment of discussion that would allow new ideas that could be applicable to Austrian economics. Whether those ideas are controlled by the Koch brothers, who were highly influenced by Mises, or not. How is that bad for Austrian Economics? Why complain about private monies trying to expand the growth of libertarian ideas? It is possible that the Koch brother’s themselves realized that they were much more enthusiastic and it gave others the perception of radicalism. I know that people look at me like I have just killed a new born when I say that I am an anarchist. Ideas change incrementally, even socialist understand that they can’t just go in and move the political center to the left. What Austrian, and for that matter general libertarian ideas, have to do is show people the error of their ways. The younger generations brought around the ideas of socialism in the 60s and 70s and the younger generations are beginning to see the value in libertarian ideas.

[Stargeezer]

Many Europeans and most Scandinavians might argue with the statement that real existing socialism has collapsed. (I think.)

[matthew mueller]

This was originally posted at the Division of Labor blog in response to White's post, but I want to also make it available to readers of this blog.

It must be remembered and continually emphasized that Austrian economics is primarily a methodology, or a way of theoretically thinking of, and practicing, economics. There are of course core ideas that define this particular perspective, but there is no Austrian orthodoxy. No aspiring Austrian economist need conform to certain standards or views in order to be welcomed into the camp. Each thinker classified as an Austrian wrote from his perspective alone, and to suggest otherwise would be to force an understanding of their writings as something that represents other people, or an ideology, which implies a level of uniformity within Austrian economics that simply does not exist. For me personally, I am not interested in speaking on anyone's behalf; I speak for myself.

To recognize that there exists no an Austrian orthodoxy does not prevent us from pointing out errors others have made in their research. Indeed, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out years ago, true scientific progress can occur only in an environment in which there is passionate and vigorous debate over fundamentals.

Many young Austrians (especially the students of Boettke at GMU) seem to believe that the best way to pursue economics is to apply a common Austrian tool kit to current problems in hopes of finding an "Austrian" solution. This is entirely wrong-headed. No fresh and new discoveries can be made in science when the methods of investigation are already spelled out. Such an approach would lead to nothing more than "mopping up activities" or "puzzle solving activities" where the solution is already anticipated in advance. As Caldwell described it, such an approch "does not seek to produce novelties" because the rules have already been clearly specified. We always want to be alert to certain anomalies which can potentially switch, change or even subvert the existing paradigm. Of course such attempts will be resisted and there will ensue a bitter debate over the fundamentals of methodological perspectives. But this is what should be happening. We ought to desire a proliferation of competing views at all times.

I congratulate Joe Salerno for his constant criticism on any Austrian who is not associated with the Mises Institute. I disapprove of the attempts by everyone else to question the appropriateness of these criticisms. Critical dialogue is the most effective way to advance any methodology.

So Horwitz's post which complained about hissing and crying is also entirely wrong-headed. We want all the hissing and crying that we can get! Never be afraid to carry a critical attitude wherever you go. And most importantly, never be afraid to express discontent or criticism of another's work! I am afraid most Austrians working today are guilty of this.

[Steven Horwitz]

If I overstated the negative response to Pete's talk (as I was not there myself), then I apologize. But even one raspberry is one too many if we are serious about intellectual discourse.

I will keep to the view, however, that Joe's attack on Pete is below the belt, as did Larry White over at DoL, both for the accusation of "cult-like" and for suggesting Pete's changing view of the best way for Austrians to succeed was a result of the changing ideas of those who provide some of his funding. I find that to be a smear of the worst sort. Since when is correlation causation, for one thing?

I will also maintain, contrary to Mueller, that "hissing and crying" at someone offering a scholarly presentation is utterly inappropriate and smacks of "cult-like" behavior far more than anything Pete said in his comments to Doherty.

Finally, for the record, I claim no monopoly on the "best" way for Austrians to succeed. I largely share Pete's agenda, but more fundamentally, I think that Austrians need to display the virtues of reason, clarity, relevance, tolerance, open-mindedness, and the strong, though rebuttable, presumption of good faith with respect to those who disagree with them that should characterize scholarship by anyone and everyone. Within those bounds, let each Austrian economist find his or her own path.

It's when Austrians go beyond those boundaries that I think it right to call them out on it. The insinuation in Joe's review that Pete's "evolution" is driven by a desire to please those who pay the bills, absent more evidence than correlation, goes over the line.

The Kochtopus argument was bullshit when Murray started it in the 80s and it's bullshit now. My salary isn't paid by Koch (other than some fraction what I get on the side from teaching IHS and Mercatus seminars), yet my thinking is reasonably close to Pete's and has probably changed over the years as well. I've had one conversation with Charles Koch in my life, so where the link between Koch and my thinking? If that link isn't there, why assume it is for Pete?

Is it possible that people's ideas change and evolve as they interact with more people in the profession and other academics and begin to see that the game (as Pete calls it) isn't what you thought it was in grad school?

[Fritz]

I can see no good reason as to why anyone at GMU (Prof. Boettke included) should care one whit what the kooky cultists at the Mises Institute think about the GMU approach to Austrian political economy.

Prof. Horwitz is absolutely right and I applaud his sentiments above about hissing and cat-calling, etc.

[Peter G. Klein]

Moving beyond the specifics of this case for a moment:

I'm puzzled by the general reluctance of scholars familiar with the public choice literature to discuss the role of institutions in the development of doctrine. Politicians, journalists, and other "second-hand dealers in ideas" respond to incentives; don't we? After all, ideas don't develop in an institutional vacuum.

Of course, "externalist" explanations for the history of ideas cannot constitute the whole story. "This cancer research was funded by the tobacco industry, therefore the results are suspect." On the other hand, purely internalist explanations aren't sufficient either. I'm sure Steve Horwitz enjoys reading Dan Klein's EconJournalWatch as much as I do. It is full of articles about institutions -- funding, access to journals and other resources, and the like. Consider Dan's work on the SSCI, or Larry White's paper on the influence of Fed funding on research in monetary economics, or E.C. Pasour's piece on the role of the USDA in funding agricultural economics research. And, more generally, Austrian economists have long maintained that state control of higher education and research funding has something to do with the obscurity of the Austrian school.

So, what role to institutions play in explaining the development of Austrian economics?

[matthew mueller]

Here is the main point. Joe Salerno has presented an argument which contradicts the statements Boettke made in his interview with Doherty, and even directly challenged the intellectual honesty and scholarly productivity of those associated with Koch.

Predictably, what have been their responses? To castigate him for advancing such views! I am deeply disappointed by this. No one (as far as I can tell) has even begun to assess the merits or failures of the arguments Salerno actually articulated. Instead, they referred to his "cult-like" behavior and academic bias. But as Mises wrote in Theory and History, bias does not matter. It does not matter what influenced Salerno to write what he did. Instead, what matters is the content of his statements. Granted Salerno is bias in his criticisms, it still stands that he has produced an irrefutable argument.

No view or methodology can ever be conclusively established as certainly true. Once we recognize this, it will become increasingly evident that we need to welcome and encourage criticism wherever it might manifest itself, even among intellectual compatriots. I am not "wildly-off-the mark" when I say Mises was incorrect in everything he ever said. No one can exhaustively discover truths about the world. All statements are subject to refutation. But this is possible only in a milieu which encourages critical dialogue.

When someone advances a position, let us not welcome it as definitive; that will accomplish little. Our first task should be to try to falsify or refute it. This can only take place in an environment of incessant hisses and cries.

[Steven Horwitz]

Peter,

I'm happy to engage in those investigations, but accepting the argument that "institutions matter" requires more detailed evidence than Joe offered. Pete's gonna hate me for saying this, but without a detailed look at what he said at various times and how that might have related to Koch money, all Joe has, at best, is correlation.

I'd venture to guess that the formative events in Pete's change of views were his year at Hoover and his time at NYU, both of which were periods that involved him having to deal with the best and brightest of Economics and related disciplines. I'm guessing that changed his thinking about what Austrians should be doing.

And all of that was while there was little to no Koch money involved.

So I don't necessarily object to Joe's question, but he provides no evidence for the answer he offers other than correlation of a sort. And if my guess above is correct, even Joe's correlation is off.

If you're gonna do history and show that institutions matter, go get your hands dirty with the documents you need to really nail down your argument.

[Matt C.]

Mr. Mueller-
Your point is well taken on the importance of criticism, but it does appear to come at a personal bent, rather than an objective stance. The true problem with the criticism, and this is a valid criticism, is that Dr. Salerno is objecting to a several page dialogue in a book that was not even written by Peter Boettke. If in that short amount of space, by no means exhaustive, Dr. Boettke might have made statements that Dr. Salerno believed incorrect there is certainly validity in criticizing him. But, the main point that Dr. Salerno seems to have a problem with is completely one sided. The criticism on the amount of coverage deal specifically with "Austrian Economics" is small, but to put the vast majority of blame on Dr. Boettke is incorrect. A much more balanced critical book review would have put the majority of onus on Doherty for not getting more than one perspective on why Austrian economics has not broken into the "mainstream."

It also important to note that Mr. Doherty did bring up those in the Austrian school in other sections of the book, of which Dr. Salerno does not mention. Doherty does mention them for their participation and influence on others and what would become the libertarian movement. He may have shorted the Austrian school in that specific section, but by no means did he say that the Austrian school did not have an impact outside of a small group.

[cuhel]

Sour grapes on Dr. Salerno's part that he is not at GMU and not riding the alleged Koch money train?

Incidentally, who funds the Mises Institute and what is there agenda? How about all that Mises Institute pro-Confederacy and racist stuff that Professor Tom Palmer (www.tomgpalmer.com) has so ably and amply documented.

Mike writes "Mainstream economics is nothing more than an intellectual circle jerk that has no real bearing on the real world of human interaction, innovation, and productivity."

Thisis just silly. Shleifer etc are far more Austrian than the self-styled Rothbardian Austrians when it comes to the substantive questions they investigate. No aprioristic armchair theorizing but extremely high quality empirical work addressing the issues Hayek was concerned with.

The Boettke way is the future of Austrian economics. The Mises Institute way is the future for an ever-irrelevant bunch of Misesian priests prattling away to one another and a bunch of u-grads who do not really know any better but likely will as they grow older and read more widely.

[Peter Boettke]

Matt Mueller ---

Not sure that I ever did anything but invite others to read Salerno's critique and to suggest that we should discuss these issues. Can you show me where I ever said anything bad about Joe?

Second, I agree that scholarship should "hurt" --- there should be conjectures and refutations. But I also believe there is scarcity in time (research and otherwise) and thus scholars do not have to respond to every attempted refutation -- both in journals and certainly in less serious outlets like newspapers and blogs. Otherwise we would be chasing after critique after critique. That doesn't get us anywhere either. We must pick the battles we want to fight. And unlike what you say, when the really good economists wrestle they so so with civility and not with an edge of suspicion and disrespect. One of the best pieces of advice IHS ever gave students was, "always present your argument as if your opponent was sitting in the front row." You can be critical, but you can also be civil.

BTW, Horwitz is right IF my views have changed it is because of the amazing experience I had at NYU and at Stanford, and more recently at LSE. I learned so much from not only Rizzo and Kirzner at NYU, but also my other colleagues, and certainly at Stanford guys like Weingast, Greif, Milgrom and Lazear were amazing to learn from, and finally Tim Besley at LSE was phenomenal to learn from. I want the students I teach in Austrian economics to be able to experience those sorts of intellectual environments that one finds at NYU, Stanford, and LSE. And I would love it if all the best Austrian economists could experience those sort of environments of learning and engagement. We will advance our common cause when we attract individuals who can routinely "walk in those worlds" easily. It requires certain skills and luck to get the opportunity, but then you have to make the most of the opportunity once it is given to you.

I have mentioned this book before but I will again --- people should read Randall Collins, The Sociology of Philosophies (Cambridge University Press). I may get myself in hot water on this, but I really believe the self-critical reader will see that many of the behaviors that have plagued different philosophical movements are behaviors we will recognize in ourselves and our movement. While the behaviors that characterize the successful philosophical movements tend to be practiced today by those groups that in fact the most successful and occupy the prestigous positions, etc.

That is an empirical claim --- a conjecture subject to refutation --- but those who hope to reject better spend some time reading and understanding the history before launch a critique.

Finally, on the issue of funding. I have had the good fortune to have been involved with institutions, private and public, that have received funds from a variety of sources to promote economic research and education.

[Peter Boettke]

Something that is being lost in this discussion is that Brian has written an entertaining and informative "biography" of the libertarian movement. Brian did not advertise his book as a scholarly history --- for that I would recommend BRINGING THE MARKET BACK IN by John Kelley. No, RADICALS FOR CAPITALISM is in the mode of IT USUALLY BEGINS WITH AYN RAND -- a sort of gonzo journalism, easy reading, tour through an intellectual movement.

Joe's review -- as one friend recently pointed out to me --- concentrates on a few pages in a 600 page book. My views can certainly be subject to critique and even ridicule, but I think it would be a shame if readers walked away deciding that they shouldn't give Brian's easy reading book a look. It is a fun, irreverent, book. I hope this fact is not lost sight of in the judgment on my words from some interviews.

[Brian Pitt]

Mr. Mueller,

On Criticism: When do scholars acknowledge that their criticisms have moved beyond the knowledge-centered critique of ideas into the mean-spirited and bitter arena of excoriation?

On Boettke's Students: I have had the pleasure of a few email exchanges with a few of Boettke's past students (who shall remain nameless). NONE of them have encouraged me to abandon my empirical interest in econometrics nor have they dissuaded me from upgrading my mathematics skills (Btw, I am a graduate SOCIOLOGY student). They have only urged me to stay clear of the all too frequent habit, among human science model builders, of allowing mathematics and statistics to become an end in itself.

NB: The historical work done by contemporary Austrians, in a similar vein of Max Weber, certainly lends credence to the idea that "Institutions Matter."

(There simply needs to be more of it!)

[matthew mueller]

Brian Pitt,

You raise an interesting question, and I stand ready and eager to try my hand at an answer.

I would simply ask, what is the difference between a "knowledge-centered critique of ideas" and a "mean-spirited and bitter excoriation"? To me there is no objective and theory-independent criterion one can refer to in drawing the distinction. All meaning is subjective. No one has access to the "truth". Truth is not something waiting to be discovered by us, much as Plato and Kant thought it was. Truth is whatever we want it to mean. We attribute meaning to anything we come into contact with. So the real question is how we can persuade others to adopt our perspective, or views.

And this is what Michael Polanyi was talking about when he described the scientific community as a "society of explorers" or when he referred to "the republic of science." As Polanyi wrote: "every claim ... aims at being judged by others as in fact true."

So our task as seekers of truth should not be to atomistically attempt to reveal truths about the world. We should instead try to persuade others to buy into our point of view. What good does it do me if I stand convinced that I have discovered something true about the world but no one believes me?

[Steven Horwitz]

I think Mr. Mueller needs to reread his Polanyi if he thinks he can find support for the argument that truth is whatever we want it to mean and that there's no theory-independent way to say something is a "mean-spirited and bitter excoriation."

Given your view of strategy Matthew, it sounds like you've been reading Lenin not Polanyi.

[matthew mueller]

Lenin! Oh heavens no! If there's one good thing that can be said about relativism it is that it is probably the philosophy best able to protect us from people like Lenin.

Relativists are passionate about their refusal or unwillingness to accept any authority, or anything as given. Now I admit Polanyi was not as radical in this respect as say Derrida or Rorty, but he is certainly recognized as one of the leading post-modernists of the 20th century.

I am very skeptical of philosphical approaches whose implications commit its followers to a given outlook. Mises commits one to the free market, while Leninism compels one to embrace totalitarianism. Both philosophies believe they have the last word on the subject.

But notice the flaw in Misesian economics. His entire approach rests on the assumption that economics can be (and is) a value free science. I can no longer accept this notion. One will have to demonstrate that it is possible to observe the world from a god's eye view --- that is, independent of a theory or specific context. This is impossible. Max Weber made two incredibly important but contradictory discoveries.

First, he claimed that all observation is theory-laden (discrediting the methodology of the German Historical School)

Second, he believed economics can distinguish between positive statements and normative concerns.

But how does this follow if all observation is theory-laden? Mises' vertfrei falls flat on its face.

This is why I have come to increasingly embrace relativism, skepticism, and (.... nihilism). And I am sure Lenin (and Mises!) would not approve of any of these positions.

[Rafe Champion]

The out of context abuse of Margaret Thatcher's statement "there's no such thing as society" signals that anyone who gives an interview on the record and does not insist on vetting the final copy is asking for trouble. Some people can speak off the cuff in flawless sentences and paragraphs, correct in fact and grammar, meaningful and coherent. However it is more common to talk with false starts, half sentences, out of context asides and diversions, exaggerations and errors which pass muster in an animated conversation but look dreadful in print. However once seen in print they can usually be fixed up quite easily.

[Rafe Champion]

The points about value freedom raised by Matthew Mueller would appear to be some way removed from the original Salerno/Boettke contratemps but because he thinks he has trashed Mises (and vindicated relativism in the process) it may be helpful to show that his case is seriously defective. It is based on the failure to understand the nature of the fact/value distinction and the function of scientific theories in framing research.

A defence of the value freedom of scientific knowledge can be found here http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=939 with a defence of the following propositions:

1. The truth of statements of fact is value-free.
2. The truth of explanations of events and phenomena is value-free. This applies in principle to the explanation of human actions where values and plans are a part of the explanation.
3. Statements of value cannot be derived from statements of fact (the dualism of facts and values).
4. General theories cannot be derived from facts either.
5. Propositions 3 and 4 do not mean that values or theories are irrational or arbitrary.
5. The choice of research projects may be guided by moral or political values, but it may not.
6. The application of the results of research inevitably involves moral or political values.