Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
Uniquely among sciences, the methodology of economics (its epistemology, ontology, scope, and focal questions) has failed to improve the match between its theories and reality. It is aprioristic, assuming that introspection will reveal unchallengeable basic truths from which a valid theoretical structure can be logically deduced. Despite the efforts of Mill, von Mises, Robbins, Friedman, Hausman, and others, this remains indefensible: inter alia, the basic ‘truths’ are immune neither to professional/ cultural biases, nor to uncertainty. Reformed methodology is proposed that would take us closer to the other sciences; this includes a new set of central questions that focus on establishing a more realistic set of basic concepts, and the provision of tools for managing complex, dynamic economic problems (e.g., crises, development). JEL: A10, B10
Economics, Management, and Financial Markets – Addleton Academic Publishers
Published: Jan 1, 2010
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.