I'm referring to the Austrian School of "economics" held to be the True Formal Science of Humanity among "Hayekian libertarians".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology

As noted, "Austrians argue that ... empirical data itself is insufficient to describe economics which in turn implies that empirical data cannot falsify economic theory".

You cannot coherently mix a Bayesian epistemology and a Hayekian-Austrian politics: the latter denies the possibility of the former (ok: it only does so in worlds without dualistic souls... but still), while the former considers the latter to have no likelihood function and therefore be nonsense.

Looking at the archived page here https://web.archive.org/web/20130501005618/http://blakemaste..., he links to The Counter Revolution Of Science https://archive.org/stream/counterrevolutio030197mbp#page/n1... Also, doesn't that fact that he removed the link imply that he no longer agrees with that view? It kind of makes me suspicious when you have to go far back to find something to disagree with. If someone is thinking wrong, they should be making mistakes constantly, so there shouldn't be a need to dig up old opinions.

Picking on him? Why would I be picking on him?

Is that the only meaning of Hayekian? I'm not too familiar with it myself (okay, I hadn't heard the term before I read the article), but if someone says they're Hayekian, that's what they mean?

To my awareness, that is the only meaning of Hayekian.