IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jecmet/v6y1999i3p331-350.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Verisimilitude and the scientific strategy of economic theory

Author

Listed:
  • Jesú s P. Zamora Bonilla

Abstract

Methodological norms in economic theorizing are interpreted as rational strategies to optimize some epistemic utility functions. A definition of 'empirical verisimilitude' is defended as a plausible interpretation of the epistemic preferences of researchers. Some salient differences between the scientific strategies of physics and of economics are derived from the comparison of the relative costs associated with each strategy. The classical discussion about the 'realism of assumptions' in economics is also considered under the light of the concept of 'empirical verisimilitude'.

Suggested Citation

  • Jesú s P. Zamora Bonilla, 1999. "Verisimilitude and the scientific strategy of economic theory," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 331-350.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jecmet:v:6:y:1999:i:3:p:331-350
    DOI: 10.1080/13501789900000022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13501789900000022
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13501789900000022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wible James, 1998. "THE ECONOMICS OF SCIENCE, METHODOLOGY AND EPISTEMOLOGY AS IF ECONOMICS REALLY MATTER: Compte rendu de lecture par Emmanuel Martin," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 8(4), pages 555-572, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Frank Hindriks, 2005. "Unobservability, tractability and the battle of assumptions," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 383-406.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. 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.
    2. Tae-Hee Jo, 2021. "Veblen’s evolutionary methodology and its implications for heterodox economics in the calculable future," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 277-295, July.
    3. Yalcintas, Altug, 2010. "The ‘Coase Theorem’ vs. Coase theorem proper: How an error emerged and why it remained uncorrected so long," MPRA Paper 37936, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. David Levy & Sandra Peart, 2012. "Tullock on motivated inquiry: expert-induced uncertainty disguised as risk," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 163-180, July.
    5. Kevin Hoover & Mark Siegler, 2008. "Sound and fury: McCloskey and significance testing in economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 1-37.
    6. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    7. Thomas Leonard, 2001. "Reflection on rules in science: an invisible-hand perspective," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 141-168.
    8. Esther-Mirjam Sent, 1999. "Economics of science: survey and suggestions," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 95-124.
    9. Nicola Lacetera & Lorenzo Zirulia, 2011. "The Economics of Scientific Misconduct," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 568-603.
    10. Arne HEISE, 2016. "‘Why has economics turned out this way?’ A socio-economic note on the explanation of monism in economics," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 81-101, November.
    11. Butos William N. & McQuade Thomas J., 2012. "Nonneutralities in Science Funding: Direction, Destabilization, and Distortion," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 18(1), pages 1-28, October.
    12. Le Maux, Benoît & Necker, Sarah & Rocaboy, Yvon, 2019. "Cheat or perish? A theory of scientific customs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    13. Bruno Frey, 2006. "How Influential is Economics?," De Economist, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 295-311, June.
    14. Altuð YALÇINTAÞ, 2015. "James R. Wible, The Economics of Science: Methodology as if Economics Really Mattered," Journal of Economics and Political Economy, KSP Journals, vol. 2(1s), pages 223-227, May.
    15. Viktor Vanberg, 2010. "The ‘science-as-market’ analogy: a constitutional economics perspective," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 28-49, March.
    16. Roger Koppl, 2011. "Against representative agent methodology," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 24(1), pages 43-55, March.
    17. Glenna, Leland L. & Welsh, Rick & Ervin, David & Lacy, William B. & Biscotti, Dina, 2011. "Commercial science, scientists' values, and university biotechnology research agendas," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 957-968, September.
    18. Altug Yalcintas, 2013. "The Problem of Epistemic Cost: Why Do Economists Not Change Their Minds (About the “Coase Theorem”)?," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(5), pages 1131-1157, November.
    19. D. Wade Hands, 2002. "Economic methodology is dead - long live economic methodology: thirteen theses on the new economic methodology," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 49-63.
    20. Mark Blaug, 2001. "No History of Ideas, Please, We're Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 145-164, Winter.

    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:taf:jecmet:v:6:y:1999:i:3:p:331-350. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJEC20 .

    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.