David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Economic Methodology 13 (1):25-47 (2006)
In this paper I explore a positivist methodological tradition in early demand theory, as exemplified by several common traits that I draw from the works of V. Pareto, H. L. Moore and H. Schultz. Assuming a current approach to explanation in the social sciences, I will discuss the building of their various explanans, showing that the three authors agreed on two distinctive methodological features: the exclusion of any causal commitment to psychology when explaining individual choice and the mandate to test the truth of demand theory on aggregate data by statistical means. However, I also contend, from an epistemological point of view, that the truth of demand theory was conceived of in three different ways by our authors. Inspired by Poincaré, Pareto assumed that many different theories could account for the same data on individual choice, coming close to a kind of conventionalism -though I prefer to refer to this position as theoreticism. Moore was himself akin to Pearson's approach, which could be named descriptivist insofar as it resolved scientific laws into statistical descriptions of the data. Finally, Schultz tried to reconcile both approaches in an adequationist stance with no success, as we shall see.
|Keywords||Prediction in economics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
David Teira (2009). Why Friedman's Methodology Did Not Generate Consensus Among Economists? Journal of the History of Economic Thought 31 (2):201-214.
Daniel M. Hausman (2000). Revealed Preference, Belief, and Game Theory. Economics and Philosophy 16 (1):99-115.
Miklavž Vospernik (2004). Measurement and the Verificationist Theory/Observation Distinction. Acta Analytica 19 (33):95-117.
Ivan Moscati & Paola Tubaro (2011). Becker Random Behavior and the as-If Defense of Rational Choice Theory in Demand Analysis. Journal of Economic Methodology 18 (2):107-128.
Fabienne Peter (2009). Rawlsian Justice. In Paul Anand, Prastanta Pattanaik & Clemens Puppe (eds.), The Handbook of Rational and Social Choice. Oxford University Press 433--456.
F. John Clendinnen (1989). Realism and the Underdetermination of Theory. Synthese 81 (1):63 - 90.
John Hart (2002). A Conversation with Terence Hutchison. Journal of Economic Methodology 9 (3):359-377.
Wenceslao J. Gonzalez (1998). Prediction and Prescription in Economics: A Philosophical and Methodological Approach. Theoria 13 (2):321-345.
Darrell P. Rowbottom (2008). The Big Test of Corroboration. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (3):293 – 302.
David Teira Serrano (2006). A Positivist Tradition in Early Demand Theory. Journal of Economic Methodology 13 (1):25-47.
Added to index2009-07-26
Total downloads49 ( #82,284 of 1,789,999 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #105,400 of 1,789,999 )
How can I increase my downloads?