Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Roy Weintraub's Studies in Appraisal: Lakatosian Consolations or Something Else?

  • Andrea Salanti (a1)

As made manifest by Clower's (1975) comments on their “science fiction” nature, general equilibrium theories (GET) present such peculiar and puzzling features that the methodologist must perforce seek some specific methodological accommodation for this part of economic theory. The role played by such theories in contemporary economics is so fundamental (in the sense of Green, 1981) that the impossibility of appraising them by means of any version of falsificationism, and their patent lack of (excess) empirical content if approached with the conceptual devices of the methodology of scientific research programs (MSRP), have prompted several scholars interested in the methodology of economics (although from different points of view and for even more different purposes) to search for a reasonable way out.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Robert Clower . 1975. “Reflections on the Keynesian Perplex.” Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie 35:124.

Gerard Debreu . 1986. “Theoretic Models: Mathematical Form and Economic Content. Econometrica 54:1259–70.

Arthur M. Diamond Jr, 1988. “The Empirical Progressiveness of the General Equilibrium Research Program.” History of Political Economy 20:119–35.

Douglas W. Hands 1984a. “Blaug's Economic Methodology.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 14:115–25.

Douglas W. Hands 1984b. “What Economics Is Not: An Economist's Response to Rosenberg.” Philosophy of Science 51:495503.

Douglas W. Hands 1985a. “Second Thoughts on Lakatos.” History of Political Economy 17:116.

Douglas W. Hands 1990. “Second Thoughts on ‘Second Thoughts’: Reconsidering the Lakatosian Progress of The General Theory.” Review of Political Economy 2:6981.

Daniel M. Hausman 1985. “Is Falsificationism Unpracticed or Unpracticable?Philosophy of the Social Sciences 15:313–19.

Ben J. Heijdra , and Anton D. Lowenberg . 1988. “The Neoclassical Economic Research Program: Some Lakatosian and Other Considerations.” Australian Economic Papers 27:272–84.

Ronald W. Jones 1965. “The Structure of Simple General Equilibrium Models.” Journal of Political Economy 73:557–72.

Alan Kirman . 1989. “The Intrinsic Limits of Modern Economic Theory: The Emperor Has No Clothes.” Economic Journal 99(Conference):126–39.

Larry Laudan 1986. “Scientific Change: Philosophical Models and Historical Research.” Synthese 69:141223.

Alan E. Musgrave 1981. “‘Unreal Assumptions’ in Economic Theory: The F-Twist Untwisted.” Kyklos 34:377–87.

Joseph V. Remeny 1979. “Core Demi-Core Interaction: Toward a General Theory of Disciplinary and Subdisciplinary Growth.” History of Political Economy 11:3063.

Andrea Salanti . 1987. “Falsificationism and Fallibilism as Epistemic Foundations of Economics: A Critical View.” Kyklos 40:368–92.

Andrea Salanti . 1989. “Distinguishing ‘Internal’ from ‘External’ Criticism in Economic Methodology.” History of Political Economy 21:635–39.

Mayo C. Toruño 1988. “Appraisals and Rational Reconstructions of General Competitive Equilibrium Theory.” Journal of Economic Issues 22:127–55.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Economics & Philosophy
  • ISSN: 0266-2671
  • EISSN: 1474-0028
  • URL: /core/journals/economics-and-philosophy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 7 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 51 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.