IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v14y1998i02p185-213_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Problems with Realism in Economics

Author

Listed:
  • Hausman, Daniel M.

Abstract

This essay attempts to distinguish the pressing issues for economists and economic methodologists concerning realism in economics from those issues that are of comparatively slight importance. In particular I shall argue that issues concerning the goals of science are of considerable interest in economics, unlike issues concerning the evidence for claims about unobservables, which have comparatively little relevance. In making this argument, this essay raises doubts about the two programs in contemporary economic methodology that raise the banner of realism. In particular I argue that the banner makes it more difficult to relate the concerns of those who wave it (Tony Lawson and Uskali Mäki) to those of other methodologists. Although this essay argues that many of the debates in this century between scientific realists and their opponents are not relevant to economics, it does not attack scientific realism, and it does not urge economists or economic methodologists to reject it.

Suggested Citation

  • Hausman, Daniel M., 1998. "Problems with Realism in Economics," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 185-213, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:14:y:1998:i:02:p:185-213_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267100003837/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Francesco Guala & Andrea Salanti, 2002. "On the Robustness of Economic Models," Working Papers (-2012) 0208, University of Bergamo, Department of Economics.
    2. repec:hal:wpaper:halshs-01249632 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Giandomenica Becchio, 2020. "The Two Blades of Occam's Razor in Economics: Logical and Heuristic," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, July.
    4. A. Allan Schmid & Paul Thompson, 1999. "Against Mechanism: Methodology for an Evolutionary Economics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1160-1165.
    5. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2016. "Mentalism Versus Behaviourism In Economics: A Philosophy-Of-Science Perspective," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 249-281, July.
    6. Francesco GUALA, 2011. "Are preferences for real? Choice theory, folk psychology, and the hard case for commonsensible realism," Departmental Working Papers 2011-18, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    7. Yalcintas, Altug, 2013. "The Oomph in economic philosophy: a bibliometric analysis of the main trends, from the 1960s to the present," MPRA Paper 44191, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Duncan Hodge, 2007. "Economics, realism and reality: a comparison of Mäki and Lawson," Working Papers 063, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    9. Giovanni Cerulli, 2010. "Modelling and Measuring the Effect of Public Subsidies on Business R&D: A Critical Review of the Econometric Literature," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(274), pages 421-449, September.
    10. Guillaume Quiquerez, 2000. "La tension entre subjectivisme et libéralisme dans l'ontolongie sociale hayékienne," Cahiers d'Économie Politique, Programme National Persée, vol. 36(1), pages 99-115.
    11. Cerulli Giovanni, 2005. "Ottimizzazione versus Razionalità Procedurale: un'analisi del dibattito sulla natura della scelta razionale in economia," CESMEP Working Papers 200501, University of Turin.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:14:y:1998:i:02:p:185-213_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/eap .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.