Talk:Economic methodology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Missing some parts of the story

This is an interesting page, and very well written. Still, I miss some items here, concerning the contributions of Hutchison, Popper and Lakatos, as well as some of the more recent discussions in the field. In the coming weeks I will try to supply some text. Of course I will be very grateful for the critical comments and corrections of other editors.Robertsch55 09:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that there is a one-half page entry for T.W. Hutchison in The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (v. 2, p. 703). He did, however, write extensively on methodology. All the others listed in the current article have respective Wiki articles. Someone might consider doing an article on him, so that further elaboration would be available for those interested.

On Popper and Lakatos, I am not aware that either has written written on economic methodology, though they are fodder for some writers on economic methodology such as Boland and Caldwell. Still, neither is mentioned in the 13 pp. of entries in The New Palgrave articles by on "philosophy and economics" and "methodology." Whether they should be referenced in this article is another (but, I believe, related) matter. --Thomasmeeks 12:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

An article on T.W. Hutchison has recently been contributed (by me), see Terence Wilmot Hutchison. I have taken the text almost completely from the New School website. His (1938) remains one of the defining contributions to the debate on positivism. His scathing criticism of 'formalism' in his later work of course offended quite a few mainstream economists. Discussions about the consequences for economic methodology of the writings of Popper, Lakatos and Kuhn was quite lively in the 80's (see also references in article Neil de Marchi). Will also put in references to J. Klant (presumably the only true 100%Popperian in economic methodology) and Mark Blaug. Robertsch55 11:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've created T. W. Hutchison & Terence W. Hutchison redirects (which is why I couldn't find said article before). Well, you've addressed the article point above. Ycu clearly have a deep interest in T.W., all to the good. --Thomasmeeks 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For my texts I will use as a reference John Davis, D. Wade Hands and U. Mäki - Handbook of Economic Methodology, Edward Elgar, 1998. The New Palgrave articles are now 20 years old and may seem a bit biased from a present day's perspective. Thank you for the redirects to TWH (whom I am currently studying quite intensively indeed) and of course for all future comments and suggestions. Robertsch55 14:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a nice Davis cite on Mainstream economics (which cite not coincidentally, I put up, along with the others). Davis might proudly claim to be heterodox. I certainly like the notion that he seems to favor of pluralism (in particulary where unification is unfruitful). Some new developments may turn out to be detours or dead ends of course. "Biased from a present day's perspective"? We sit on the shoulders of giants, and the principle of charity should apply here as elsewhere, or so I believe. Witness your high regard for TW. JEL classification codes still puts classifies institutional economics, which Davis may incline toward, as heterodox economics, inexact and sometimes misleading as that claasification might be. The Lazear reference you might find to be a nice counterweight. I look forward to an expanded TWH entry (from which I can doubtless learn). Philosophy of economics might also be an article that your interests could benefit from. --Thomasmeeks 16:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)