Mainstream Aversion to Economic Methodology and the Scientific Ideal of Physics
There is a persistent aversion towards methodological discourse by most mainstream economists. Frank Hahn (1992) exemplified this attitude and provoked a number of reactions concerning the role and the reasons for methodological aversion. After offering a categorization of the main explanations for methodological aversion, the paper suggests an explanation that is based on the role of the physics scientific ideal. It argues that the strive to achieve the high scientific status of physics by following the methods of physics, contributed to the negative mainstream attitude towards economic methodology. This can be reinforced by examining the writings of extremely influential mainstream economists such as Irwin Fisher and Milton Friedman. These works clearly imply that the hard science status of economics renders methodological discussions and especially methodological criticism, rather pointless. Given that the existing prescriptions for making economic methodology more attractive do not give much thought to this important aspect of mainstream economics, the paper also argues for a more systematic discussion of this issue.
|Date of creation:||Jul 2014|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
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.:
- D. Wade Hands, 2002. "Economic methodology is dead - long live economic methodology: thirteen theses on the new economic methodology," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 49-63.
- Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521415019, December.
- Mill, John Stuart, 1874. "Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, edition 2, number mill1874.
- Hands,D. Wade, 2001.
"Reflection without Rules,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521497152, December.
- Shaun P. Hargreaves Heap, 2001. "Methodology now!," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 95-108.
- Turk, Michael H., 2012. "The Mathematical Turn In Economics: Walras, The French Mathematicians, And The Road Not Taken," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(02), pages 149-167, June.
- Weintraub, E Roy, 1989. " Methodology Doesn't Matter, but the History of Thought Might," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 91(2), pages 477-493.
- Drakopoulos, Stavros A. & Katselidis, Ioannis, 2013.
"From Edgeworth to Econophysics: A Methodological Perspective,"
46975, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Stavros Drakopoulos & Ioannis Katselidis, 2015. "From Edgeworth to econophysics: a methodological perspective," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 77-95, March.
- Bruce Caldwell, 2013. "Presidential Address — Of Positivism and the History of Economic Thought," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 753-767, April.
- John B. Davis, 2007. "The turn in economics and the turn in economic methodology," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 275-290.
- Jevons, William Stanley, 1871. "The Theory of Political Economy," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number jevons1871.
- Paul A. Samuelson, 1998. "How Foundations Came to Be," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(3), pages 1375-1386, September.
- Tony Lawson, 1994. "Why are so many economists so opposed to methodology?," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 105-134.
- Mirowski, Philip, 1984. "Physics and the 'Marginalist Revolution.'," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(4), pages 361-379, December.
- Philip Mirowski, 1992. "What Were von Neumann and Morgenstern Trying to Accomplish?," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 24(5), pages 113-147, Supplemen.
- Cairnes, John E., 1888. "The Character and Logical Method of Political Economy," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, edition 2, number cairnes1888.
- Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521425230, December.
- Mark Blaug, 2001. "No History of Ideas, Please, We're Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 145-164, Winter.
- Philip Mirowski, 1991. "The When, the How and the Why of Mathematical Expression in the History of Economic Analysis," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 145-157, Winter.
- Roger Backhouse, 2010. "Methodology in action," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 3-15.
- Bruce J. Caldwell, 1990. "Does methodology matter? : how should it be practiced?," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 64-71, Spring.
- Hoover, Kevin D, 1995. "Why Does Methodology Matter for Economics? Review Article," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(430), pages 715-734, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:57222. 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: (Joachim Winter)
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.