Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:39:07.795Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Assessment of the Scientific Standing of Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Margaret Schabas
Margaret Schabas*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In his paper on the “Methodology of Positive Economics”, Milton Friedman warned his readers that, “more than other scientists, social scientists need to be self-conscious about their methodology.” (1953, p. 34). But until quite recently, he seems either to have spoken to deaf ears or, more plausibly, to have been so successful in promoting his own views on methodology as to lead economists to be complacent about the many problems which plague their discipline. Many current textbooks, for example the one by Eugene Silberberg, present economics as a science attaining the falsificationist standards once set down by Karl Popper, despite much evidence to the contrary. Indeed, as Douglas W. Hands (1985) has recently shown, even Sir Karl did not intend economics to be subjected to such severe standards.

Type
Part V. Social Science
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 298 - 306
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1986

References

Boland, L. (1982). The Foundations of Economic Method. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Blaug, M. (1980). The Methodology of Economics or How Economists Explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Caldwell, B. (1982). Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collingwood, R.G. (1956). The Idea of History. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, R. (1983). The Nature of Psychological Explanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1953). “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” In Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pages 3-43. (As reprinted in Philosophy and Economic Theory. Edited by F. Hahn and M. Hollis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. Pages 18–35.)Google Scholar
Gardiner, P. (ed.). (1974). The Philosophy of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. and Varian, H., (1978). “Economic Models.” Journal of Philosophy 25: 664–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, C. (1985). “Interpreting Learner.” Economics and Philosophy 1: 290–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hands, D.W. (1985). “Karl Popper and Economic Methodology: A New Look.” Economics and Philosophy 1: 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. (1962). “Rational Action.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 35: 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Hollis, M. and Nell, E.J (1975). Rational Economic Man: A Philosophical Critique of Neoclassical Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopmans, T.C. (1957). Three Essays on the State of Economic Science. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Leijonhufvud, A. (1973). “Life Among the Econ.” Western Economics Journal 11: 327–337.Google Scholar
Passmore, J. (1958). “The Objectivity of History.” Philosophy 33: 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1972). “Friedman’s ‘Methodology’ for Economics: A Critical Examination.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 2: 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1976). Microeconomic Laws; A Philosophical Analysis. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1983). “If Economics Isn’t Science, What Is It?” Philosophical Forum 14: 296–314.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.A. (1966). “An Exact Consumption-Loan Model of Interest with or without the Social Contrivance of Money.” In The Collected Papers of Paul A. Samuelson. Volume 1. (ed.) Joseph E. Stiglitz. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pages 219–482.Google Scholar
Silberberg, Eugene. (1978). The Structure of Economics: A Mathematical Analysis. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Walsh, W.H. (1967). “Colligatory Concepts in History.” Studies in the Mature and Teaching of History. Edited by W.H. Burston and D. Thompson. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Pages 65-84. (As reprinted in Gardiner (1974). Pages 127-144.)Google Scholar
Wiseman, J. (ed.). (1983). Beyond Positive Economics? London: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar