Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-s65px Total loading time: 0.474 Render date: 2021-03-04T19:19:05.395Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

INTROSPECTION, REVEALED PREFERENCE, AND NEOCLASSICAL ECONOMICS: A CRITICAL RESPONSE TO DON ROSS ON THE ROBBINS-SAMUELSON ARGUMENT PATTERN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2008

Abstract

Image of the first page of this article
Type
Research Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Backhouse, Roger and Medema, Steve. 2009. “Robbins's Essay and the Axiomatization of Economics.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought Forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balzer, Wolfgang and Hamminga, Bert, eds. 1989. Philosophy of Economics. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1963. “Intellectual Autobiography.” In Schilpp, P. A., ed., The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, pp. 384.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy; Cat, Jordi, Fleck, Lola, and Uebel, Thomas. 1996. Between Science and Politics: The Philosophy of Otto Neurath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, Patricia S. 1986. Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, Paul M. 1984. Matter and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Colander, David. 2000. “The Death of Neoclassical Economics.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22 (June): 127–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, John B. 2003. The Theory of the Individual in Economics: Identity and Value. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, John B. 2006. “The Turn in Economics: Neoclassical Dominance to Mainstream Pluralism.” Journal of Institutional Economics 2 (April): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debreu, Gerard. 1959. Theory of Value. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel. 1987. The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel. 1991a. Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel. 1991b. “Real Patterns.” The Journal of Philosophy 88 (January): 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, John. 1993. The Disorder of Things. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1999. Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2001. Dynamics of Reason. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1953. “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” In Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3–43.Google Scholar
Glimcher, Paul W. 2003. Decisions, Uncertainty, and the Brain: The Science of Neuroeconomics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hands, Wade D. 1985. “The Structuralist View of Economic Theories: A Review Essay.” Economics and Philosophy 1 (October): 303–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hands, D. Wade 2001. Reflection Without Rules: Economic Methodology and Contemporary Science Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hands, D. Wade. 2006. “Integrability, Rationalizability, and Path-Dependency in the History of Demand Theory.” In Mirowski, P. and Hands, D. W., eds., Agreement on Demand: Consumer Theory in the Twentieth Century. Durham, NC: Duke University Press [Annual Supplement to History of Political Economy Volume 38], pp. 153–85.Google Scholar
Hausman, Daniel M. 2000. “Revealed Preference, Belief, and Game Theory.” Economics and Philosophy 16 (April): 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houthakker, Hendrik S. 1950. “Revealed Preference and the Utility Function.” Economica 17 (May): 159–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howson, Susan. 2004. “The Origins of Lionel Robbins's Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science.” History of Political Economy 36 (Fall): 413–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kihlstrom, Richard, Mas-Colell, Andreu, and Sonnenschein, Hugo. 1976. “The Demand Theory of the Weak Axiom of Revealed Preference.” Econometrica 44 (September): 971–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koo, Anthony Y. C. 1963. “An Empirical Test of Revealed Preference Theory.” Econometrica 31 (October): 646–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koo, Anthony Y. C. and Hasenkamp Georg, Georg. 1972. “Structure of Revealed Preference: Some Preliminary Evidence.” Journal of Political Economy 80 (July–August): 724–44.Google Scholar
Lewin, Shira B. 1996. “Economics and Psychology: Lessons from Our Own Day From the Early Twentieth Century.” Journal of Economic Literature 34 (September): 1293–323.Google Scholar
Andreu, Mas-Colell, Whinston, Michael D., and Green, Jerry R. 1995. Microeconomic Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McKenzie, Lionel. 2002. Classical General Equilibrium Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 2002. Machine Dreams: Economics Becomes a Cyborg Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Alan W. 1998. Carnap's Construction of the World: The Aufbau and the Emergence of Logical Empiricism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robbins, Lionel. 1935. An Essay on the Nature & Significance of Economic Science, second edition. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Robbins, Lionel. 1938. “Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility: A Comment.” The Economic Journal 48 (December): 635–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, Lionel. 1953. “Robertson on Utility and Scope.” Economica 20 (May): 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander. 1992. Economics: Mathematical Politics or Science of Diminishing Returns? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander. 1995. Philosophy of Social Science, second edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Ross, Don. 1999. The Concept of Utility from Bentham to Game Theory. Cape Town, South Africa: University of Cape Town Press.Google Scholar
Ross, Don. 2000a. “Introduction: The Dennettian Stance.” In Ross, D., Brook, A., and Thompson, D., eds., Dennett's Philosophy: A Comprehensive Assessment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Ross, Don. 2000b. “Rainforest Realism: A Dennettian Theory of Existence.” In Ross, D., Brook, A., and Thompson, D., eds., Dennett's Philosophy: A Comprehensive Assessment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 147–168.Google Scholar
Ross, Don. 2005. Economic Theory and Cognitive Science: Microexplanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The Concept of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1938. “A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behaviour.” Economica 5 (February): 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1947. Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1948Consumption Theory in Terms of Revealed Preference.” Economica 15 (November): 243–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneed, Joseph D. 1971. The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordrecht, NL: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegmüller, Wolfgang. 1976. The Structure and Dynamics of Theories. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegmüller, Wolfgang, Balzer, Wolfgang, and Sophn, Wolfgang, eds. 1982. Philosophy of Economics. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, Frederick. 1977. The Structure of Scientific Theories, second edition. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Uebel, Thomas E. 1992. Overcoming Logical Positivism From Within: The Emergence of Neurath's Naturalism in the Vienna Circle's Protocol Sentence Debate. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi.Google Scholar
Uzawa, Hirofumi. 1971. “Preference and Rational Choice in the Theory of Consumption.” In Chipman, J. S., Hurwicz, L., Richter, M. K., and Sonnenschein, H. F., eds., Preferences, Utility, and Demand. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, pp. 7–28.Google Scholar
Varian, Hal. 2006. “Revealed Preference.” In Szenberg, M., Ramrattan, L., and Gottesman, A. A. eds., Samuelsonian Economics and the Twenty-First Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, Stanley. 2006. The Foundations of Paul Samuelson's Revealed Preference Theory. London: Routledge (first edition1978).Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 7
Total number of PDF views: 67 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 4th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

INTROSPECTION, REVEALED PREFERENCE, AND NEOCLASSICAL ECONOMICS: A CRITICAL RESPONSE TO DON ROSS ON THE ROBBINS-SAMUELSON ARGUMENT PATTERN
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

INTROSPECTION, REVEALED PREFERENCE, AND NEOCLASSICAL ECONOMICS: A CRITICAL RESPONSE TO DON ROSS ON THE ROBBINS-SAMUELSON ARGUMENT PATTERN
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

INTROSPECTION, REVEALED PREFERENCE, AND NEOCLASSICAL ECONOMICS: A CRITICAL RESPONSE TO DON ROSS ON THE ROBBINS-SAMUELSON ARGUMENT PATTERN
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *