The pigeonholing of Hutchison's methodology as positivist, ultra-empiricist or Popperian has militated against a full appreciation of his more complex position. In this as-verbatim-as-possible account of an afternoon's discussion with Hutchison, it is the directly personal manner in which we gain insights, rather than simply the insights themselves, that we hope will help towards a re-assessment. We learn of his non-positivist view that economics is an empirical-historical discipline distinct from the natural sciences; and his rejection of Popper's view that prediction (...) in economics can and should be based on laws like the law of gravity. We hear of his wariness of relying on the hypothetico-deductivist methods of Popper and later positivists in a subject such as economics, and his support instead for the methodological views of Jacob Viner and the inductive methods associated with the historically and institutionally detailed approaches of Cliffe Leslie, Wesley Clair Mitchell and Henry Phelps Brown. (shrink)

Hutchison's 1938 essay has been mainly interpreted as introducing positivism and ultra-empiricism into economics. Such interpretations misrepresent his position. While he clearly drew on logical positivism, his methodology stems from a more moderate form of empiricism. However the issue at stake is not the exact degree of Hutchison's empiricism, but rather the extent to which such negative labelling has trivialised his position and distracted attention from the main concern of his 1938 essay. This was to mount a sustained and systematic (...) criticism of the traditional abstract-deductive method in economics. In its place Hutchison sought to promote a more empirical, inductive approach. The paper is concerned with demonstrating the extent to which Machlup failed to provide evidence of Hutchison's ultra-empiricism. It thereby seeks to clear the way towards a reappraisal of Hutchison's methodology and towards a reappraisal of its relevance in our post-positivist era. (shrink)

Terence Hutchison's 1938 essay has been variously interpreted as introducing positivism, ultra?empiricism and Popperian falsificationism into economics. This paper argues that such interpretations are unfair and inaccurate. Moreover, they distract from his central message. The paper is divided into three main sections. The first seeks to demonstrate the extent to which Hutchison's essay differs from these previous interpretations. The second argues that Hutchison's central concern was to highlight and demonstrate the inadequacies of the traditional deductive method of?classical? economics. The third (...) contends that Hutchison is best interpreted as following in a long line of British empiricists and outlines some features of the?empirical?inductive? approach that he supports. (shrink)

The person arguably most responsible for the view of Hutchison as the positivist who introduced positivism into economics was Frank Knight. I argue that Knight in 1940 failed to demonstrate that Hutchison was a positivist, at least in the narrow logical positivist sense of the term. By questioning Knight's charge, I aim to challenge the conventional wisdom that identifies?Hutchison? with?positivism?. The paper is then a first step in the argument that positivism, even in 1938, played only an inessential role in (...) a consistent methodological position that Hutchison developed alongside his work in the history of economic thought. (shrink)

In an attempt to combat the positivist view that the only legitimate way to conduct social science is in the manner of a natural science, Knight distinguished between positivist and non-positivist categories or levels of interpretation of human-social subject matter. Since each of the categories contained ‘a large element of truth’, Knight argued that any serious analysis would need to embrace a pluralist approach. In this paper I draw on four separate accounts he gave (in 1934, 1940, 1941, and 1942) (...) of these categories in order to arrive at a more complete statement. This fuller description will hopefully promote a deeper appreciation of Knight's emphasis on the need for adopting a pluralist approach to the subject matter of economics. I then apply the perspective of the categories to shed light on Knight's definition of economics and his criticism of Robbins' definition. (shrink)

People from Native American/First Nation spiritual traditions and from Christian religious backgrounds express sometimes contradictory, sometimes complementary perspectives on humans' role in an interrelated and interdependent "web of life." The extinction of salmon species in the Columbia-Snake river system of Canada and the United States, and the loss of salmon from the Haida Gwaii fisheries off the western coast of Canada, provide bioregional stimuli for reflection on whether nonhuman species have intrinsic value or solely instrumental value, and the extent to (...) which species preservation should have equitable status with, or take precedence over, human wants and apparent human needs. If societal needs and species conservation, and the common good of all creatures, are to be integrated for the good of the commons then a relational consciousness must replace "dominion" and "stewardship" attitudes toward creation. (shrink)

At one time, the American Medical Association had a strong pro-life position regarding unborn human beings. Using an online AMA archives database, this research note contrasts early AMA pro-life commentary with its eventual pro-choice position. Strong pro-life advocacy in the mid-to-late 1800s, led by doctors such as Horatio Storer, gave way in the 1900s to a waning of pro-life zeal, and eventually developed into a pro-choice stance on abortion.

Hutchison's 1938 essay has been variously interpreted as introducing positivism, ultra-empiricism and Popperian falsificationism to economics. Yet his apparent inconsistency in maintaining all of these positions seems to have gone unnoticed in the literature. Previously I have criticized attempts to characterize Hutchison as a positivist or ultra-empiricist. In this article I argue that Klappholz and Agassi failed to support their claim that Hutchison introduced Popper's criterion to economics. That is, this paper deals with this specific question, rather than the wider (...) one of whether or not Hutchison introduced Popperian falsificationism to economics. Yet the two issues are closely connected and so the latter question is briefly discussed. To the extent that the paper succeeds, it may help to resolve the inconsistency problem. For now it is possible that Hutchison in 1938 developed his own original and consistent position. The task of substantiating such a view by providing a positive account of his methodology is one for the future. (shrink)