On the Lakatosian apple of discord in the history and methodology of economics
While economic methodologists seem to be increasingly dissatisfied with Lakatos's criteria of appraisal, many (internalist) historians of economic thought continue to rely on typically Lakatosian categories in order to identify portions of economic analysis whose historical development is to be 'rationally' reconstructed. This historiographic approach, however, prevents economists from realizing that Lakatosian novel facts may be 'new' not only because previously unknown, but even because previously inexistent. To deny this possibility is tantamount to believing in an incredibly strong version. of methodological monism according to which social sciences deal with a subject-matter as immutable over time as that of natural science.
Volume (Year): 7 (1994)
Issue (Month): 1 (Spring)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.taloustieteellinenyhdistys.fi|
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Goodwin, Craufurd D W, 1972. "Economic Theory and Society: A Plea for Process Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(2), pages 409-15, May.
- Rosenberg, Alexander, 1986. "Lakatosian Consolations for Economics," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(01), pages 127-139, April.
- Barber, William J., 1967. "A History of Economic Thought," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number barber1967.
- Andrea Salanti, 1998. "Book Reviews," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 179-185.
- Warren J. Samuels, 1974. "The History of Economic Thought as Intellectual History," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 6(3), pages 305-323, Fall.
- Salanti, Andrea, 1987. "Falsificationism and Fallibilism as Epistemic Foundations of Economics: A Critical View," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 368-392.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fep:journl:v:7:y:1994:i:1:p:30-41. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Editorial Secretary)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.