Live and Dead Issues in the Methodology of Economics

1. The purpose of this note is a very humble one; it is an attempt to eliminate certain causes of unnecessary confusion. In the last ten years much has been written both by professional economists and by laymen on the methodology of economics. Some of this as it seems to me, has been concerned with live issues — with issues, that is to say about which intelligent men may well differ even when they have become fully aware of each other’s premises. But some of it seems to rest upon misunderstanding and to relate to issues upon which there is no real dispute once the question is clearly stated. This note merely attempts to separate out some of these issues, particularly those that relate — or are thought to relate — to the vexed question of the status of realistic studies — to separate the quick from the dead in order that we may not any longer be encumbered by the latter. I hope that the absence of references will not be misunderstood. It would be easy enough to indicate the authorship of the misconceptions which are mentioned; and in certain cases the temptation has been strong. But I cannot help thinking that the purpose of the note is better served by deliberately refraining from assigning responsibility for what may seem to be obvious error. The issues are intellectual, not personal.