|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)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Lawrence A. Boland (1998). Situational Analysis Beyond Neoclassical Economists. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 28 (4):515-521.
Drucilla K. Barker & Edith Kuiper (eds.) (2003). Toward a Feminist Philosophy of Economics. Routledge.
Harold Kincaid & Don Ross (eds.) (2009). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics. Oxford University Press.
Daniel M. Hausman (1992). Essays on Philosophy and Economic Methodology. Cambridge University Press.
John Maloney (1994). Economic Method and Economic Rhetoric. Journal of Economic Methodology 1 (2):253-268.
Kevin D. Hoover & Mark V. Siegler (2008). Sound and Fury: McCloskey and Significance Testing in Economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 15 (1):1-37.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-05-01
Total downloads5 ( #160,171 of 548,973 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?