Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T06:24:34.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Economics is Not: An Economist's Response to Rosenberg

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Douglas W. Hands
Douglas W. Hands*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Puget Sound
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Alexander Rosenberg (1983) has argued, contrary to his previous work in the philosophy of economics, that economics is not science, and it is merely mathematics. The following paper argues that Rosenberg fails to demonstrate either of these two claims. The questions of the predictive weakness of modern economics and the cognitive standing of abstract economic theory are discussed in detail.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , September 1984 , pp. 495 - 503
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank Bruce Caldwell, H. Scott Gordon, Leon Grunberg, Daniel Hausman, and Michael Veseth for useful suggestions on earlier drafts of this comment, as well as Alfred MacKay for making his unpublished and forthcoming work available to me. Errors and omissions are of course solely the responsibility of the author. Partial support was provided by the University of Puget Sound Faculty Research Grant R-77–2210.008.

References

Balzer, W. (1982), “A Logical Reconstruction of Pure Exchange Economics”, Erkenntnis 17: 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, M. (1980). The Methodology of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boland, L. A. (1979), “A Critique of Friedman's Critics”, Journal of Economic Literature 17: 502–22.Google Scholar
Boland, L. A. (1981), “On the Futility of Criticizing the Neoclassical Maximization Hypothesis”, American Economic Review 71: 1031–36.Google Scholar
Boland, L. A. (1982), The Foundations of Economic Method. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Caldwell, B. J. (1982), Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Coddington, A. (1975), “The Rationale of General Equilibrium,” Economic Inquiry 13: 539–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deanne, P. (1983), “The Scope and Method of Economic Science”, The Economic Journal 93: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazer, W. J., and Boland, L. A. (1983), “An Essay on the Foundations of Friedman's Methodology”, American Economic Review 73: 129–44.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1953), “The Methodology of Positive Economics”, in Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3–43.Google Scholar
Gordon, H. S. (1978), “Should Economists Pay Attention to Philosophers?”, Journal of Political Economy 86: 717–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, F. (1973), “The Winter of Our Discontent”, Economica 40: 717–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Händler, E. W. (1980a), “The Logical Structure of Modern Neoclassical Static Microeconomic Equilibrium Theory”, Erkenntnis 15: 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Händler, E. W. (1980b), “The Role of Utility and of Statistical Concepts in Empirical Economic Theories: The Empirical Claims of the Systems of Aggregate Market Supply and Demand Functions Approach”, Erkenntnis 15: 129–57.Google Scholar
Händler, E. W. (1982), “The Evolution of Economic Theories: A Formal Approach”, Erkenntnis 18: 65–96.Google Scholar
Hands, D. W. (1983), “Second Thoughts on Lakatos”, Working Paper 83–5, Department of Economics, University of Puget Sound.Google Scholar
Hands, D. W. (1984), “The Role of Crucial Counterexamples in the Growth of Economic Knowledge: Two Case Studies in the Recent History of Economic Thought”, History of Political Economy 16: 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, D. M. (1981a), Capital, Profits and Prices: An Essay in the Philosophy of Economics. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, D. M. (1981b), “Are General Equilibrium Theories Explanatory?” in J. C. Pitt (ed.). Philosophy in Economics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 17–32.10.1007/978-94-009-8394-6_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, D. M. (1983), “Are There Causal Relations Among Dependent Variables?”, Philosophy of Science 50: 58–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Learner, E. E. (1983), “Let's Take the Con Out of Econometrics”, American Economic Review 73: 31–43.Google Scholar
MacKay, A. F. (1983), “The Incredibility of Rejecting Belief-Desire-Action Explanations,” in P. D. Asquith and T. Nickles (eds.). PSA 1982 Vol. II.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, D. N. (1983), “The Rhetoric of Economics”, Journal of Economic Literature 21: 481–517.Google Scholar
Roemer, J. E. (1982) A General Theory of Exploitation and Class. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674435865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1976), Microeconomic Laws: A Philosophical Analysis. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1980), “A Skeptical History of Microeconomic Theory”, Theory and Decision 12: 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1983), “If Economics Isn't Science, What is It?”, The Philosophical Forum 14: 296–314.Google Scholar