One of the links in Mike Huben's index of critiques of Austrian Economics points to his own post:
Austrian Economics is allegedly unscientific because it "has a methodological disrespect of data". Strange statement for a math teacher. After all, mathematics also has a methodological disrespect of data. Is math also unscientific then? Mike does not say.
Then follows the parable of the ship. The owner of the ship fails to identify the most important causes of his ship sinking, so the ship sinks. Analogously, according to Mike, Austrians fail to identify the most important causes of problems like "inflation or disease or whatever", because they have a methodological disrespect of data.
Mike does not seem to understand what "methodological disrespect of data" is. Mathematics theory also has a methodological disrespect of data, but does it mean mathematics cannot be used to interpret data? Of course it can, it is the most accurate tool to interpret data concerning unconscious matter out there. Analogously, Austrian Economics theory has methodological disrespect of data, but still is the most accurate tool to interpret conscious action data out there. Mathematics is so useful to interpret data precisely because it has methodological disrespect of data. Otherwise it would be specific data dependent, hence useless in most applications. But mathematics is data independent. Same for Austrian Economics. It is independent of real world data, so it can be safely used for accurate interpretation of any real world data that concerns conscious action.
It is therefore true that "Austrianism is staunchly against measurement", because measurement is "philosophically invalid", for the purpose of validating theory. However, to say Austrian Economists do "not use measurement" just because they don't need data to validate their economics theory, is same as to say that mathematicians do "not use measurement" because they don't need data to validate their math theory. What an ignorance. Austrians do analyze and interpret real world data, just read virtually any article at http://www.mises.org/
Mike goes on to say that "since Austrians are innumerate, instead they must rely on their assumptions". No, Austrians rely on their self-evident assumptions and logical conclusions precisely to be able to accurately interpret numerical data out there.
Then we read that "no assumption about the real world is totally true". Mike demands "total" truth, whatever that means. Sure, maybe we all live in a Matrix with our whole lives programmed, who knows. Still, I personally think it is useful to make a working assumption we don't. I don't really need "total" philosophical truth. There is only one such truth, ie that we exist, in some form. But there is nothing really useful you can deduce from it. So in addition to that "total" one truth, I also believe, for example, that people prefer leisure to work. In other words, this truth is "total" enough for me.
Mike agitates further that "you MUST introduce measurement and mathematics into your models if you want to have any hope of valid answers." No, you must precisely NOT introduce measurement into your models if you want your models to be measurement independent.
Finally, surprisingly, Mike says a very true statement that "logical verbal models are sufficient to specify possible chains (or networks) of causation, but telling which are significant is a quantitative problem that requires measurement." Perfect! Looks like Mike again does not seem to understand what he fights against...
Mike ends his article with a quote from... David Hume, while, as TheLowlyPhilosopher in one of the comments noted, "the main contribution to modern philosophy that Hume is known for is his argument against the certainty of induction and thus science. Hume famously is known for his argument that just because the Sun has risen for billions of years we cannot be certain that it will rise tomorrow. We cannot derive certainty from scientific observations (induction). Thus Hume rejected the idea that science and induction could give us absolute knowledge only probable knowledge." Precisely!