IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ula/econom/v28-29y2003-2004i19-20p11-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two economists views about method: economics without method vs methodological pluralism

Author

Listed:
  • Eduardo R. Scarano

    (Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Centro de Investigación en Epistemología de las Ciencias Económicas, Buenos Aires-Argentina.)

Abstract

This paper discusses two views of economic method supported by economists: the economics (the science) without method, a radical demand of Lawrence Boland and the opposite view, the pluralism of methods and the methodological pluralism, supported by Sheila Dow. Both are explained as it is explained the most important argument: there is not a set of universal criteria for choosing between rival theories. Though the principal arguments are alike, they have opposite implications. Then, the difficulties of each approach and some of their premises are examined and criticized. Both points of view explain an inadequate rationality theory. The construction of a satisfactory theory of rationality, which avoids the skepticism and the relativism, is the most important component of the methodological agenda.

Suggested Citation

  • Eduardo R. Scarano, 2003. "Two economists views about method: economics without method vs methodological pluralism," Economía, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales (IIES). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales. Universidad de Los Andes. Mérida, Venezuela, vol. 28(19-20), pages 11-34, january-d.
    • Handle: RePEc:ula:econom:v:28-29:y:2003-2004:i:19-20:p:11-34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://iies.faces.ula.ve/Pdf/Revista19-20/Rev19-20Scarano.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:ula:econom:v:28-29:y:2003-2004:i:19-20:p:11-34. 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: Alexis Vásquez (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iiulave.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.