IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jecmet/v16y2009i3p341-350.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Realism and relevance in the economics of a free society: the Knight-Hutchison debate

Author

Listed:
  • Ross Emmett

Abstract

The methodological debate between Frank Knight and Terence Hutchison is usually framed in terms of the philosophical debates between positivism and intuitionism, or between empirical knowledge and theoretical knowledge. Hutchison's argument was, after all, a defense of the need for empirically-based economic knowledge, using the justificatory framework provided by logical positivism, and Knight was widely known for his defense of the understanding of economic theory often associated with Lionel Robbins. But the dispute between Knight and Hutchison was much more than a battle over the epistemological status of economics' basic postulates. For Knight, Hutchison's positivism posed risks for the discussion at the heart of liberal democracy. Hutchison, also, aimed his methodological criticism of economic theory at a similar target: the economic objectives of all societies would be achieved sooner if planners were guided by an empirical economic science.

Suggested Citation

  • Ross Emmett, 2009. "Realism and relevance in the economics of a free society: the Knight-Hutchison debate," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 341-350.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jecmet:v:16:y:2009:i:3:p:341-350
    DOI: 10.1080/13501780903129322
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13501780903129322
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13501780903129322?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Luca Fiorito, 2015. "A Certain Amount of ‘Recantation'. On the Origins of Frank H. Knight’s Antipositivism," Department of Economics University of Siena 705, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    2. D. Wade Hands, 2009. "Introduction," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 287-291.

    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:taf:jecmet:v:16:y:2009:i:3:p:341-350. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJEC20 .

    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.