[OPE-L:4157] (Fwd) Re: Who agrees with Popper? [re OPE-L:4154]

From: Andrew Brown (Andrew@lubs.leeds.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 19 2000 - 06:40:12 EDT


I ask again, a point of agreement amongst whom? I flatly disagree 
with you if you say it is agreed by either economic methodologists 
or by philosophers of science. See for example the well known 
collection on economic methodology edited by Roger Backhouse, 
'New directions in economic methodology' (Routledge 1994).  But 
more than that consider the entire development of economic 
methodology since Blaug's seminal text on the topic. Blaug 
asserts not just Popper-Lakatos's general view but also the specific 
one regarding the litmus test. And it is this litmus test, more than 
anything else, that *has* been rejected by most people in the field. 
What on earth is the current 'return to practice' if it isn't a rejection 
of the litmus test? How then can you assert that it (the litmus test) 
remains a point of agreement?

At the very least you must argue for this contentious assertion (one 
that is incorrect on my view!)


PS I have been unable to solve the problem of the 'send reply to' 
field. Any help on this would be appreciated.

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent:      	Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:04:54 +1000
To:             	Andrew@lubs.leeds.ac.uk
From:           	Steve Keen <s.keen@uws.edu.au>
Subject:        	Re: [OPE-L:4155] Who agrees with Popper? [re OPE-L:4154]

Popper's theory of how a science does develop and should practice has been
rejected since Kuhn. But his litmus test remains a point of agreement.

At 10:11 19/10/00 +0100, you wrote:
>You wrote [OPE-L:4154]:
>> science has moved on a long way from Popper, his litmus test between a
>> science and a non-science--that the former makes statements which can be
>> falsified, whereas the latter makes it impossible to either verify or
>> disconfirm itself--is still accepted.
>By whom? As I understand it (I'm no expert) it is not accepted, as 
>a general rule, by current 'philosophers of science' (it hasn't been 
>since Feyerabend), nor therefore by current 'economic 
>methodologists' (who tend to be some years behind the philospohy 
>of science discipline). Far from it, the current vogue is a 'return to 
>practice' which means rejecting the 'prescriptivism' typified by 
>Popper and (lamely) *describing* what scientists actually do.
>I certainly don't agree with Popper's 'litmus test'. I don't think Marx 
>did in the slightest (nor do I agree with the current 'philosophy of 
>science' - obvioulsy Marx doesn't). However, I'm not really sure 
>where people on this list stand on the 'litmus test'. Fred stated 
>agreement with Gil on this I think. It is an important question 
Dr. Steve Keen
Senior Lecturer
Economics & Finance
University of Western Sydney Macarthur
Building 11 Room 30,
Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown
PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560
s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/

------- End of forwarded message -------

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:10 EST