IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v24y2000i5p565-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

McCloskey, Economics as Conversation, and Sprachethik

Author

Listed:
  • Park, Man-Seop
  • Kayatekin, Serap A

Abstract

In writing about the "rhetoric of economics"--particularly about the standards which prevent situations where "anything goes" in argument--McCloskey takes an eclectic approach to two philosophical positions, based on Rorty and Habermas respectively. But these positions, despite sharing some common aspects, also differentiate themselves from each other sharply in important ways. In this paper, it is argued that this eclecticism of McCloskey is not coherent, as a result of her not completely grasping the fundamental differences between these two positions, and that this incoherence has damaging implications for her project of the rhetoric of economics. Copyright 2000 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Park, Man-Seop & Kayatekin, Serap A, 2000. "McCloskey, Economics as Conversation, and Sprachethik," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 24(5), pages 565-580, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:24:y:2000:i:5:p:565-80
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander, Matthew & MacLaren, Andrew & O’Gorman, Kevin & Taheri, Babak, 2012. "“He just didn’t seem to understand the banter”: Bullying or simply establishing social cohesion?," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1245-1255.

    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:24:y:2000:i:5:p:565-80. 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.