IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hop/hopeec/v40y2008i5p143-167.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“A Hard Battle to Fight”: Natural Theology and the Dismal Science, 1820–50

Author

Listed:
  • Harro Maas

Abstract

William Whewell's and Richard Jones's criticism of Jeremy Bentham's and David Ricardo's “dismal” views on the relation of theory and evidence in political economy was motivated by the former's views on the structuring role of natural theology for questions of method and evidence in the sciences, including political economy. In comparison, natural theology was for Richard Whately as structuring on these issues as it was for the Cambridge men. Whately's view on natural theology, however, conformed with the Ricardian predilection for theory over facts. The differences between the Cambridge men and Whately became manifest after (or better: during) the publication of Jones's book on rent in 1831 and led to a somewhat acerbic exchange of views on the role of definitions in science and the use of history for establishing scientific evidence. As far as political economy was concerned, Whately's stance carried the day in Victorian England.

Suggested Citation

  • Harro Maas, 2008. "“A Hard Battle to Fight”: Natural Theology and the Dismal Science, 1820–50," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 40(5), pages 143-167, Supplemen.
  • Handle: RePEc:hop:hopeec:v:40:y:2008:i:5:p:143-167
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hope.dukejournals.org/content/40/5/143.full.pdf+html
    File Function: link to full text
    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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    theology; Richard Whately;

    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:hop:hopeec:v:40:y:2008:i:5:p:143-167. 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: (Center for the History of Political Economy Webmaster). General contact details of provider: http://www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?viewby=journal&productid=45614 .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.