Hostname: page-component-797576ffbb-xmkxb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-12-08T04:17:46.394Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Rosenberg's “Lakatosian Consolations for Economists”: Comment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

E. Roy Weintraub
Duke University


Rosenberg (1986) argues that economists have embraced the methodology of scientific research programs, and the writings of Imre Lakatos (1978), at the same time that philosophers have been abandoning that approach. According to Rosenberg, the methodology of scientific research programs (MSRP) appears to allow some work in economics, which is neither tested nor testable, to be “scientific” nonetheless. That is, MSRP justifies some current practices which look hard to justify on strict falsificationist, or dogmatic positivist, grounds.

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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.)



Gilbert, C. L. 1986. “The Development of British Econometrics 1945–1985.” Applied Economics Discussion Paper No. 8. Oxford: Institute of Economics and Statistics, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Hirsch, A., and de Marchi, N. 1986. “Making a Case When Theory Is Unfalsifiable: Friedman's Monetary History.” Economics and Philosophy 2:121.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1, edited by Worrall, J. and Currie, G.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, D. N. 1986. The Rhetoric of Economics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. 1985. “Finding a Satisfactory Empirical Model.” Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of York, England.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A. 1986. “Lakatosian Consolations for Economists.” Economics and Philosophy 2:127–39.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. R. 1985a. General Equilibrium Analysis: Studies in Appraisal. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. R. 1985b. “The Neo-Walrasian Program Is Empirically Progressive.” Working Paper, Department of Economics, Duke University.Google Scholar