IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v29y2005i1p99-117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Naturalised epistemology and economics

Author

Listed:
  • Clive Beed

Abstract

The relevance to economics of naturalised epistemology (also known as the naturalistic turn) from philosophy of science has recently been argued by economic methodologists, especially by D. Wade Hands (Reflection Without Rules: Economic Methodology and Contemporary Science Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001). This concept is held by Hands to constitute part of the 'new economic methodology' that consists of the 'interpenetration of economics and science theory'. Contrary to Hands's case, naturalised epistemology is shown here not to represent a qualitatively new concept, to possess little coherent meaning, and to be incapable of charting an innovative way forward for economics. Although there are more issues concerning naturalism bearing on economics than are noted by Hands, three specific limitations of naturalised epistemology are discussed. These and other limitations are related to the economics examples Hands proposes suggesting the usefulness of naturalised epistemology for economics. Copyright 2005, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Clive Beed, 2005. "Naturalised epistemology and economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 99-117, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:29:y:2005:i:1:p:99-117
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bei013
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lukáš Kovanda, 2011. "Ekonomie budoucnosti: čtyři možné scénáře [The Future of Economics: Four Possible Scenarios]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2011(6), pages 743-758.

    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:oup:cambje:v:29:y:2005:i:1:p:99-117. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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.