Methodology might matter, but Weintraub's meta-Methodology shouldn't

Journal of Economic Methodology 1 (2):215-232 (1994)
The paper questions Weintraub's thesis that ?Methodology doesn't matter?. It is argued that the thesis is unclear, and when clarified on the basis of textual evidence from Weintraub himself, it is false (or else trivially true). It is also pointed out that Weintraub's argument for the thesis is based on what he denounces, namely ?Methodology? (of a second degree); it turns out to be a ?Methodological? argument against ?Methodology?. The thesis also gives a distorted picture of what many methodologists of economics actually are doing. On the other hand, Weintraub's arguments for why the history of economic thought might matter also apply to much of economic methodology. It is concluded that methodology might matter.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,360
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA
    Citations of this work BETA
    Roger E. Backhouse (2010). Methodology in Action. Journal of Economic Methodology 17 (1):3-15.
    Similar books and articles
    Alex Viskovatoff (2003). Rationalism and Mainstream Economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 10 (3):397-415.

    Monthly downloads

    Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

    Added to index


    Total downloads

    1 ( #306,410 of 1,089,053 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #69,801 of 1,089,053 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature

    Start a new thread
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.