IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v1y1985i01p83-99_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Karl Popper and Economic Methodology: A New Look

Author

Listed:
  • Hands, Douglas W.

Abstract

Discussions of Karl Popper's falsificationist philosophy of science appear regularly in the recent literature on economic methodology. In this literature, there seem to be two fundamental points of agreement about Popper. First, most economists take Popper's falsificationist method of bold conjecture and severe test to be the correct characterization of scientific conduct in the physical sciences. Second, most economists admit that economic theory fails miserably when judged by these same falsificationist standards. As Latsis (1976, p. 8) states, “the development of economic analysis would look a dismal affair through falsificationist spectacles.”

Suggested Citation

  • Hands, Douglas W., 1985. "Karl Popper and Economic Methodology: A New Look," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 83-99, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:1:y:1985:i:01:p:83-99_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267100001905/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fabrício Baron Mussi & Andre da Silva Zembro & Aline Alvares Melo, 2017. "Contributions of Philosophy of Science, in the Perspective of Popper and Lakatos, for the Study of Innovation: An Analysis of the Neoclassical Schumpeterian and Neo-schumpeterian Theories," Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, vol. 26(1), pages 9-25, December.
    2. Marek Loužek, 2012. "Ekonomie vědy - naděje, nebo léčka? [Economics of Science - A Hope or a Pitfall?]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2012(4), pages 536-550.
    3. Joan Trullén, 2013. "Giacomo Becattini and the Marshall's Method," ERSA conference papers ersa13p1148, European Regional Science Association.
    4. Joan Trullén, 2010. "Giacomo Becattini and the Marshall's method. A Schumpeterian approach," Institut Metròpoli Working Paper in economics 1003, Institut Metròpoli.
    5. Pierre Salmon, 1987. "Models, theories and arguments in economics [Modèles, théories et arguments en économique]," Working Papers hal-01534445, HAL.
    6. Deniz Kellecioglu, 2017. "How to transform economics? A philosophical appraisal," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 11(1), pages 1-26, November.
    7. Boris Salazar, 2001. "¿Qué tan racional es el principio de racionalidad de Popper?," Revista de Economía Institucional, Universidad Externado de Colombia - Facultad de Economía, vol. 3(5), pages 52-77, July-Dece.
    8. Gebhard Kirchgässner, 2013. "The Weak Rationality Principle in Economics," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 149(I), pages 1-26, March.
    9. Ivan H. Ayala & Alfonso Palacio-Vera, 2014. "The Rational Expectations Hypothesis: An Assessment from Popper's Philosophy," Economics Working Paper Archive wp_786, Levy Economics Institute.
    10. George Şerban-Oprescu, 2012. "Economic approaches to sustainability and quality of life. an epistemological study," Romanian Economic Journal, Department of International Business and Economics from the Academy of Economic Studies Bucharest, vol. 15(46bis), pages 79-96, December.
    11. Abe De Jong, 2022. "Research in business history: From theorising to bizhismetrics," Australian Economic History Review, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(1), pages 66-79, March.
    12. Bruce J. Caldwell, 1990. "Does methodology matter? : how should it be practiced?," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 64-71, Spring.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:1:y:1985:i:01:p:83-99_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/eap .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.