Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||My intention here is to show that the rhetorical approach to economics is based on a doctrine (the McCloskeyian doctrine) which, at least in some respect, is flawed. I will argue that Donald McCloskey fails to establish three central thesis which this doctrine articulates: first, that the rhetorical approach can explain the success of economics, a fact that I will clearly challenge; second, that only “insiders” can and should set the scientific standards in economics, an idea I will vigorously reject; and third, that philosophical epistemology and methodology is useless for economists because the only thing philosophers are interested in is to find a demarcation criterion, and since this is impossible, philosophy of economics should be completely ignored by economists.; hence, I will argue here that McCloskey’s account of methodology is not grounded|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Kevin D. Hoover & Mark V. Siegler (2008). Sound and Fury: McCloskey and Significance Testing in Economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 15 (1):1-37.
John Maloney (1994). Economic Method and Economic Rhetoric. Journal of Economic Methodology 1 (2):253-268.
Daniel M. Hausman (1992). Essays on Philosophy and Economic Methodology. Cambridge University Press.
Daniel Hausman (2001). Explanation and diagnosis in economics. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 3:311-326.
Harold Kincaid & Don Ross (eds.) (2009). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics. Oxford University Press.
Drucilla K. Barker & Edith Kuiper (eds.) (2003). Toward a Feminist Philosophy of Economics. Routledge.
Lawrence A. Boland (1998). Situational Analysis Beyond Neoclassical Economists. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 28 (4):515-521.
Added to index2009-05-01
Total downloads5 ( #170,048 of 726,777 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?