Philosophical Investigations 33 (1):44-66 (2010)
|Abstract||Even the briefest and most superficial perusal of leading mainstream economics journals will attest to the degree that mathematical formalism has captured the economics profession. Whereas up to the early 20th century virtually all of the output of the dismal scientists was in the literary format, by the early 21st century this is not at all any longer the case. Mathematical formalism is supposed to serve economics, and yet now true economic insight has been crowded out by the math. If mainstream neoclassical economics is to come back to its proper path, a far less central role for mathematical economics, statistics and econometrics will have to be fashioned.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Henry K. H. Woo (1986). What's Wrong with Formalization in Economics?: An Epistemological Critique. Victoria Press.
Stephan Boehm & Karl Farmer (1993). Why the Acrimony? Reply to Davidson. Critical Review 7 (2-3):407-421.
S. Mohun & R. Veneziani (2012). Reorienting Economics? Philosophy of the Social Sciences 42 (1):126-145.
Lukasz Hardt (2010). Criticizing the Critique. Some Methodological Insights Into the Debate on the State of Economic Theory in the Face of the Post 2008 Crisis. Bank&Credit 41 (4):7-22.
Paul Davidson (1989). The Economics of Ignorance or Ignorance of Economics? Critical Review 3 (3-4):467-487.
Dennis C. Mueller (2004). Models of Man: Neoclassical, Behavioural, and Evolutionary. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 3 (1):59-76.
Peter J. Boettke (1990). Individuals and Institutions. Critical Review 4 (1-2):10-26.
Thomas Mayer (1998). Boettke's Austrian Critique of Mainstream Economics: An Empiricist's Response. Critical Review 12 (1-2):151-171.
Added to index2009-12-10
Total downloads22 ( #57,056 of 556,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,847 of 556,837 )
How can I increase my downloads?