What can a neoclassical economist learn from Austrianism?

[Or, what is and is not strictly predicated on praxeology?] Hi all. Neoclassically inclined dabbler in economics here. I have a question that is too outside my knowledge base to be able to answer myself, but I bet some educated person here might well be able to help me. I've seen even the Austrianism's harshest and ideologically opposed critics give the school credit for a few important developments. In addition, the admittedly small amount of Austrian-produced material I've seen is often very clear-cutting. As such, though I am not an Austrian economist myself, I feel it's important, basically, not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, if you'll forgive the idiomatic slight. With that in mind, of the large body of work in the Austrian school, are there, in the broad sense, any elements that aren't strictly predicated on Autrianism's axiomatic methodology? Or any general way to tell the difference? I may not be able to accept Austrianism's approach to economics, but neither do I wish to leave any compatible knowledge and insight on the table if it is there for the taking.

link: http://ift.tt/1rigmq4