Agrippa's Trilemma in Critiquing Austrian Economics versus the Facetist Solution

This study provides a novel epistemological defense of Austrian economics by applying Agrippa’s Trilemma (Münchhausen trilemma) to its most persistent methodological criticisms, demonstrating that charges of unfalsifiability, insufficient rigor, and ideological bias themselves collapse into regress, circularity, or dogmatism. The central novelty is the integration of Facetism (Kayser, 2026a) as an epistemological framework that resolves these tensions by incorporating intersubjectivity, the reality/parareality distinction, chaotic dynamics, and observable tendencies (ROR/PNR and bell-shaped patterns). Combining praxeological insights with historical evidence—from Roman debt crises and the classical gold standard to the German Energiewende and comparative poverty outcomes—the paper shows that Austrian economics, extended through Facetism, offers a uniquely realistic and progressive approach to open, complex human systems. It moves beyond the sterile “too rigid / not rigid enough” debate in economic methodology.