[Borodog]

I'm not sure what he means, but I know a bit about praxeology, and I'm not sure what his objection is. There's nothing about praxeology that says you can't perform empirical studies, like whether more people prefer waffles to pancakes or vice versa; praxeology just makes it clear that such empirical studies can not be used to discover economic law, only matters of preference. Well; empirical studies might point you in the correct direction to start thinking about an economic law, like noticing that supply is proportional to price and demand inversely so might lead you to think about the correct chain of reasoning to deduce the law of marginal utility.

In any event, there's nothing about praxeology that makes empirical studies less interesting. I would say they are more about psychology than they are "economics" per se; that is economics as the study of the rational allocation of scarce resources. Modern "economics", as say practiced in the advertising industry or financial markets is largely an empirical science that attempts to constantly measure or predict shifting patterns of preferences in the population. The main problem comes in when this econometric science is used to try to justify interventionist public policy; it inevitably leads to policies that are rife with economic fallacy.