Author
Abstract
Economic science, despite its claim to status as the most mathematically formalised of the social sciences, rests on philosophical foundations whose neglect has produced recurrent intellectual and practical crises, from the methodological controversies of the late nineteenth century to the predictive failures surrounding the 2007–2008 global financial crisis and the present epistemic challenges of artificial intelligence and big data. Purpose: This article systematically examines the philosophical and epistemological foundations of economic inquiry to articulate a defensible framework of methodological pluralism appropriate to twenty-first-century economic science. This study employs a conceptual-analytical method, combined with a bibliometric description and comparative philosophical analysis. It surveys the principal epistemological schools that have shaped economic thought, maps methods to research questions, and develops a framework of epistemic virtues for contemporary research. Economic knowledge is best understood as plural, fallible, and value-laden, rather than singular, certain, and value-free. Different research questions warrant different methods, and the dominance of any single approach, whether deductive theorizing, econometric inference, or experimental methods, generates systematic blind spots. The findings argue for a pluralist epistemology that integrates deductive, empirical, interpretive, and historical methods and cultivates epistemic virtues, including ontological humility, methodological pluralism, value transparency, empirical responsiveness, and reflexive critique. A philosophically literate economics, attentive to its own foundations, is better positioned to address the complex policy challenges and emerging methodological possibilities of the contemporary moment, including emerging economies such as Indonesia. This study contributes to the growing literature on the philosophy of economics by integrating epistemological analysis with applied research design considerations.
Suggested Citation
Handle:
RePEc:prv:jeeppv:1920
DOI: 10.55942/jeep.v1i1.1920
Download full text from publisher
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:prv:jeeppv:1920. 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: Mochammad Fahlevi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journal.privietlab.org/index.php/JEEP .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.