Una Introducción A La Filosofía De Las Ciencias Y La Epistemología De La Economía A Través De Fritz Machlup
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52195/pm.v20i1.854Abstract
Fritz Machlup’ s paper, «The problem of verification in economics» —classic text of the epistemology of economics— is presented, not only as a way of overcoming the debate on the empirical verification of the assumptions in economic theory, but also as an occasion to introduce the reader in fundamental issues of philosophy of science and to get him started in the epistemology of economics. We distinguish, on one side, topics on philosophy of science and, on the other, on philosophy of social sciences and, in particular in economics. Regarding philosophy of science, the hypothetical deductive method, confirmation and the notion of truth and reality, are explored. As for philosophy of social sciences and economics, we deal with the Apriorists vs. Ultraempiricists debate, the hypothetical deductive method in economics, the testability of the fundamental assumptions, the philosophical foundation of the
References
Ackerman, R. (1989). «The new experimentalism». The British Society for the Philosophy of Science, 2 (40), 185-190.Aristóteles, (2005). Ética a Nicómaco. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.Artigas, M. (1992). La Inteligibilidad de la Naturaleza. Pamplona: EUNSA.Ayer, A. (1959). El Positivismo Lógico. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Blaug, M. (1985). La metodología de la economía o cómo explican los economistas. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.Boettke, P. (2012). Living Economics: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. The Independent Institute.Böhm-Bawerk, E. von (1884-1889-1921 [1959]). Capital and Interest. 3 vols. Illinois: Libertarian Press.Boland, L. (1979). «A critique of Friedman’s critics». Journal of Economic Literature, 17, 503-522.Borella, A. (2006). «Notas sobre el principio de racionalidad». Libertas, 45, 120-124.
—
(2017). Modelos Económicos y Realidad. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: Grupo Unión.
—
(2019). «Lógica de la situación y realismo en Popper». Libertas: Segunda Época, 4 (2), online.
—
(2020). Trazos-Ensayos de filosofía para el mundo social. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: Grupo Unión.
Cachanosky, J. C. (1984). «La Escuela Austríaca de Economía». Libertas, 1, 181-217.Caldwell, B. (1980). «A critique of Friedman’s methodological instrumentalism». Southern Economic Journal, 47 (2), 366-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1057529
—
(1982). Beyond Positivism. Taylor and Francis.
—
(1991). «Clarifying Popper». Journal of Economic Literature, 29 (1), 1-33.
—
(1992). «Friedman’s predictivist instrumentalism- a modification». Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 10, 119-128.
—
(2004). Hayek’s Challenge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Carman, C. (2004). El realismo científico en Rom Harré, Quilmes: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.Dilthey, W. (1883 [1949]). Introducción a las Ciencias del Espíritu. México: F.C.E.Dolan, E. (1976). (Ed.). The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics. California: The Institute for Humane Studies.Duhem, P. (1916). Le Système du Monde. Histoire des Doctrines Cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic (Tome IV). Libraire Scientifique A Hermann et Fils.Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Fraassen, B.C. van. (1980). The Scientific Image. Nueva York: Clarendon Press.Friedman, M. (1953). “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” En Essays in Positive Economics (pp-3-43). Chicago: The University of Chicago PressFuller, S. (2000). Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for our Times. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hands, D.W. (1985). «Karl Popper and economic methodology: a new look». Economics and Philosophy, 1, 83-99.
—
(1993). «Popper and Lakatos in economic methodology». En U. Mäki, Bo. Gustafsson, y C. Knudsen, (Eds.), Rationality, Institutions and Economic Methodology. Londres: Routledge.
—
(2001). Reflection without Rules. Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
Hayek, F. A. (1936). “Economics and knowledge.” En Individualism and Economic Order (pp. 33-56). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
—
(1942-44 [1979]). “Scientism and the Study of Society.” En The Counter Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason (pp. 17- 182). Indianápolis: Liberty.
—
(1952 [2022]). El Orden Sensorial. Madrid: Unión Editorial.
Hayek, F. (1955). “Degrees of explanation.” En Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (pp. 3-21). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
—
(1964). “The theory of complex phenomena.” En Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (pp. 22-44). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Harman, G. (1965). «The inference to the best explanation». The Philosophical Review, 88-95.Hawking, S. (2011). Los sueños de los que está hecha la materia: Los textos fundamentales de la física cuántica y cómo revolucionaron la ciencia. España: Ed Crítica.Hempel, C. (1966 [1973]). Filosofía de la Ciencia Natural. Madrid: Alianza.
—
(1979 [2005]). La Explicación Científica. Barcelona: Paidós.
Herfeld, C. (2021). «Understanding the rationality principle in economics as a functional a priori principle». Synthese, 198 (14), 3329-3358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02730-zHoover, K. (2016). “Situational analysis.” En L. McIntyre y A. Rosenberg, (Eds.). The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Social Science. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315410098Hülsmann, J. G. (2007). Mises: the Last Knight of Liberalism. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Husserl, E. (1899). Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy– Second Book: Studies in the Phenomenology of Constitution. Kluwer.
—
(1913). Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy– First Book: General Introduction to a Pure Phenomenology. Nijhoff.
—
(1950 [1999]). Cartesian Meditations. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
—
(1954 [1970]). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy. Northwestern University Press.
—
(1994 [2007]). Problemas Fundamentales de la Fenomenología. Alianza Editorial.
Hutchison, T. (1938). The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory. Londres: Macmillan.Kant, I. (2014). Crítica de la Razón Pura. Madrid: Gredos.
Kirchgässner, G. (2013). «The weak rationality principle in economics». Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 149, (1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03399379.Kirzner, I. (1978). «The entrepreneurial role in Menger’s system». Atlantic Economic Journal, 6(3), 31-45
—
(1992 [2001]). The Meaning of Market Process. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.
Kneale, W y M. (1980). El Desarrollo de la Lógica. Madrid: Tecnos.Kuhn, T. (1962 [1999]). La Estructura de las Revoluciones Científicas. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Lagueux, M. (1993). «Popper and the rationality principle». Philosophy of Social Sciences, 23(4), 468-480. https://doi.org/10.1177/004
—
(2002). “Popper and the rationality principle.” En I. Jarvie, K. Milford, & D. Miller, (Eds.), Karl Popper A Centenary Assessment. Reino Unido: Ashgate Publishing Group, Vol. III.
Lakatos, I. (1978). La Metodología de los Programas de Investigación Científica. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.Latsis, S. (1972). «Situational determinism in economics». British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 23, 207-245.Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its Problems- Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Londres: RoutledgeLipton, P. (1991 [2004]). Inference to the Best Explanation. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.López Ruiz, F. J. (1988). Fin de la teoría según Pierre Duhem, Naturaleza y alcance de la Física. Pontificium Athenaeum Sanctae Crucis.Machlup, F. (1955). «The problem of verification in Economics». Southern Economic Journal, 1(22), 1-21./«El problema de la verificación en economía. Trad. Nicolás Maloberti. Revista Libertas, 40, 417-472.Mäki, U. (2009a). (Ed.). The Methodology of Positive Economics. Reflections on the Milton Friedman Legacy. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
—
(2009b). “Unrealistic assumptions and unnecessary confusions: rereading and rewriting F53 as a realist statement.” En U. Mäki, (2009a) (Ed.). The Methodology of Positive Economics. Reflections on the Milton Friedman Legacy (pp. 90-116). Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
—
(2009c). “Reading the methodological essay in twentieth century economics: map of multiple perspectives.” En U. Mäki, (2009a) (Ed.). The Methodology of Positive Economics. Reflections on the Milton Friedman Legacy (pp. 47-67). Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
—
(2009d). «MISSing the world: models as isolations and credible, surrogate systems». Erkenntnis, 70, 29-43. doi 10.1007/s10670-008-9135-9
Menger, C. (1871 [1985]). Principios de Economía Política. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Orbis.
—
(1883 [1985]). Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences. Nueva York y Londres: New York University Press.
Mill, J. S. (1874). Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy. M. Kelley Publishers.
—
(1882). A System of Logic. Nueva York: Harper & Brothers.
Miller, B. (2011). «The rationality principle idealized». Social Epistemology, 25 (4), 407-434.Mises, L. von. (1933 [2003]). Epistemological Problems of Economics. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
—
(1966). Human Action. Chicago: Contemporary Books.
Musgrave, A. (1981). «‘Unreal assumptions’ in economic theory: the F-twist untwisted». Kyklos, 34 (3), 377-387. https://doi.org/Ç10.1111/j.1467-6435.1981.tb01195.xNagel, E. (1961 [2006]). La Estructura de la Ciencia. Barcelona: Paidós.
—
(1963). «Assumptions in economic theory». The American Economic Review, 53(2), 211-219.
Neves, V. (2004). «Situational analysis beyond «single-exit» modelling». Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28, 921-936. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beh037Notturno, M. (1998). «Truth, rationality and the situation». Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 28(3), 400-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Poincare, H. (1902 [1905]). Science and Hypothesis. Londres y Newcastle: The Walter Scott Publishing Co., Ltd.
Popper, K. R. (1963). “Models, instruments and truth.” En M. Notturno (Ed.). (1994). The Myth of the Framework. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.
—
(1974) “Replies to my critics.” En Schilpp, P. A. (Ed.). The Philosophy of Karl Popper, Parte II (pp. 1144-1153). Illinois: Open Court.
—
(1981 [2011]). Realismo y el Objetivo de la Ciencia: Post Scriptum a la Lógica de la Investigación Científica, Vol. I. Madrid: Tecnos.
—
(1985). La Lógica de la Investigación Científica. Madrid: Tecnos.
—
(1982 [2000]). The Open Universe: an Argument for Indeterminism. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.
—
(1987). La miseria del historicismo. Madrid: Taurus.
Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific Realism. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.Rothbard, M. (1957). «In defense of «extreme apriorism»». Southern Economic Journal, 23(1), 314-320.
—
(1962 [2009]). Man, Economy and State. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Schütz, A. (1953). «Common-sense and scientific interpretation of Human Action». Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, XIV, 1-38.
—
(1954). «Concept and theory formation in social sciences». The Journal of Philosophy, LI, 257-273.
Weber, M. (1949). On the Methodology of Social Sciences. Illinois: The Free Press.Wong, S. (1973). «The F-twist and the methodology of Paul Samuelson». The American Economic Review, 63(3), 312-325.Zanotti, G. J. (1991). «Machup, un puente entre Mises y Lakatos». Libertas, (15), 143-187.
—
(2011). «Filosofía de la ciencia y realismo: los límites del método». Civilizar, 11(21), 99-118.
—
(2013). Caminos Abiertos. Madrid: Unión Editorial.
—
(2014). «Una argumentación cualitativa a favor del acercamiento de las conjeturas a la realidad». RIIM, (61), 135-150.
—
(2019). La hermenéutica como el humano conocimiento. Cheyenne: Arje.
—
(2022). El método de la economía política. Madrid: Unión Editorial.
—
y Borella, A. (2015). «Modelos y Escuela Austríaca: una fusión entre Friedman y la Escuela Austríaca pasando por Mäki».
Filosofía de la Economía, (4), 69-85. Reimpreso en J.H. Cole, (Ed.), (2019). A Companion to Milton Friedman (pp. 73-90). Guatemala: Universidad Francisco Marroquín.
Zanotti, G.J. & Cachanosky, N. (2015). «Implications of Machlup’s interpretation of Mises’s epistemology». Journal of History of Economic Thought, 37 (1), 111-138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S105383721
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2023-07-26 (3)
- 2023-07-25 (2)
- 2023-07-24 (1)
