IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v44y2020i6p1415-1424..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Keynes, Kuhn and the sociology of knowledge: a comment on Pernecky and Wojick

Author

Listed:
  • Rod Thomas

Abstract

Mark Pernecky and Paul Wojick use T.S. Kuhn’s philosophy of science to diagnose The problematic nature and consequences of the effort to force Keynes into the conceptual cul-de-sac of Walrasian economics. But their diagnosis is itself problematical in nature and consequence. It assumes the virtues of a pre-Kuhnian philosophy of knowledge that the Kuhnian meta-framework overtly discards. One way to eliminate the inconsistency is to recognise that Kuhn’s philosophy of science and sociology of knowledge function to immunise theories from criticism. Anyone who wishes to embrace a sociologically more critical philosophy ought to consider instead the philosophical attitude of critical rationalism.

Suggested Citation

  • Rod Thomas, 2020. "Keynes, Kuhn and the sociology of knowledge: a comment on Pernecky and Wojick," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 44(6), pages 1415-1424.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:44:y:2020:i:6:p:1415-1424.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/beaa016
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Arne Heise, 2022. "The Incommensurability of Keynes's and Walrasian Economics and the Unsuccessful Escape from Old Ideas," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 10(2), pages 12-19, February.

    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:oup:cambje:v:44:y:2020:i:6:p:1415-1424.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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.