IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ecj/econjl/v108y1998i451p1837-47.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Controversy: Axiomatisches Missverstandnis

Author

Listed:
  • Weintraub, E Roy

Abstract

From the axiomatic point of view, mathematics appears thus as a storehouse of abstract forms--the mathematical structures; and so it happens without our knowing how that certain aspects of empirical reality fit themselves into these forms, as if through a kind of preadaptation (Bourbaki, 1950). So you believe that the application of mathematics to the physical world is a miracle? If so, then the author invites you to admire another miracle; he can travel around the world with his American Express card. You say of the second, 'That's just a network. If you step out of it by so much as an inch, your card will be valueless.' Quite so. That is what The author is saying about science, nothing more and nothing less (Latour, 1988).

Suggested Citation

  • Weintraub, E Roy, 1998. "Controversy: Axiomatisches Missverstandnis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(451), pages 1837-1847, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecj:econjl:v:108:y:1998:i:451:p:1837-47
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sheila C. Dow, 2012. "Variety of Methodological Approach in Economics," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Foundations for New Economic Thinking, chapter 13, pages 210-230, Palgrave Macmillan.
    2. Tamás Dusek, 2008. "Methodological Monism in Economics," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 1(2), pages 26-50, March.

    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:ecj:econjl:v:108:y:1998:i:451:p:1837-47. 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: Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.html .

    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.