Popper: Philosophy of Economics

This paper defends JN Keynes’s argument that normative economics can be objective. It begins by exploring Keynes’s view on the positive/normative distinction in economics. After discussing its originality and advantages, the paper recognizes that the Keynesian distinction does not explain the exact nature of the relationship between positive and normative economics. Thus, it tries to improve Keynes’s position using Popper’s contributions to economics. It shows that for Popper, advances in normative social science are the main steppingstone to resolving disagreements over (...) the choice of the norms underlying the reform of social situations. The final two parts of the paper draw on the contributions of Keynes and Popper to the study of norms to explain why normative economics can more easily approach objectivity by concentrating on highly delimited topics. The last part relies on Popper’s concept of avoidable unhappiness to offer one method of restraining the tasks of normative economics. (shrink)

Friedrich Hayek was a fervent advocate of the methodological specificity of the social sciences. However, given his contact with Karl Popper, several historians and philosophers have characterized his final position as Popperian, that is, a position that would have accepted the unity of scientific method. A closer look at Hayek's philosophy and Popper's own intellectual course shows that such a thesis is based on misconceptions that can be overcome by taking the Hayekian concept of 'spontaneous order' as the foundation of (...) a methodology immune to any kind of methodological monism. (shrink)

Karl Popper and Friedrich von Hayek became close friends soon after they first met in the early 1930s. Ever since, they discussed their ideas intensively on many occasions. But even though an analysis of the origins and contents of their ideas and correspondence reveals a number of important and fundamental differences, they rarely criticize each other in their published work. The article analyzes in particular the different ideas they have on the role of reason in society and on rationalism and (...) the roots of these differences. Popper’s “Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition” of 1948 contains a criticism of Hayek’s idea—published, for instance, in “Individualism: True and False” of 1945—that we must accept tradition without trying to change it. An analysis of the differences between the two authors touches on topics such as the possibility of public intervention in society, the role of social science in this, the methodology of social science, and the differences between liberalism and social democracy. The article concludes with some possible explanations for Popper and Hayek downplaying their differences in public. The fact remains that they never resolved the tension between Popper’s critical rationalism and Hayek’s conservative rationalism. (shrink)

"Friedrich von Hayek and Karl Popper were two of the twentieth century's greatest thinkers, and two of its greatest proponents of freedom and open society. They were also close friends, and even people who are very familiar with their writings often think that their philosophical, economic, and political views are more or less the same. This book, however, argues that Hayek and Popper differed in fundamental ways about rationality, economism, and democracy--and that these differences, and the different ways in which (...) Hayek and Popper argued for them, lie at the heart of political thought and still have significant consequences for our own political discourse today. It argues that Hayek and Popper disagreed about whether and to what extent society is well served by deliberate attempts at government intervention; about whether and to what extent democracy involves majority rule; and, most importantly, about whether we should value freedom for its own sake, as an end in itself, or merely as a means to greater prosperity and wealth. Contrary to Popper, this volume argues that Hayek was prepared to accept socialism--which in his view logically implies totalitarianism--if it could be shown to be at least as efficient and productive as the market; that his concept of freedom is grounded in the same sort of economism that Popper criticized in Marx; and that he proposed reforms to the electoral system that would actually transform a democracy into what Popper would have regarded as a tyranny"--. (shrink)

Even though Popper, Lawson and Mäki are realists, the three of them understand by realism something different and support different positions on the use of models in economics. In this article we will compare the three proposals on their conceptions of reality, the function and the nature of economic models and their use to study the social world.

This new book, under the impressive editorship of Thomas Boylan and Paschal O'Gorman, explores a number of major themes central to the work of Karl Popper. The tensions that have resulted from Popperian thought are well documented. How can mainstream orthodox economics be falsifiable while privileging its core of rationality as unquestionable? This book includes expert contributions from thinkers such as Tony Lawson, K. Vela Velupillai and John McCall, who discuss this issue with renewed academic rigour.

El presente trabajo intenta profundizar en la noción de racionalidad y la lógica de la situación de Karl Popper en el marco del debate entre “economía sustantiva” y “economía formal o instrumental”. Con tal propósito realizaremos una breve aproximación histórica al concepto de racionalidad económica señalando los distintos aportes de diversos autores a la cuestión. Este marco histórico permitirá encuadrar el planteo que Karl R. Popper hace de la lógica de la situación como metodología de las ciencias sociales tomada de (...) la teoría económica. En cuanto a la racionalidad y la lógica de la situación en Popper distinguiremos algunas notas acerca del análisis situacional y de la noción de racionalidad que subyace al mismo. Analizaremos el principio de racionalidad y el debate en torno al status epistemológico de tal principio. (shrink)

Jeffrey Friedman has attempted to make a case for limiting state social engineering that is based on the skeptical epistemology of Sir Karl Popper. But Popper's epistemology is flawed, both in its rejection of a priori theorizing and its insistence on empirical falsification rather than confirmation. Classical liberalism of the sort that Friedman advocates requires, as its basis, positive knowledge of economics and social reality—not Popperian skepticism.

Karl Popper has had an extraordinary influence on scientific and social thought.

La cuestión del principio de racionalidad en el pensamiento de Karl Popper pareciera no mostrarse con precisión (observación hecha por diversos autores), al menos no como lo es su propuesta falsacionista. Pero intentaré retomar las principales notas sobre este principio e indicar algunas aproximaciones al debate epistemológico que surgen en torno a él. Popper trata de hallar un método que permita el conocimiento de las ciencias naturales y de las ciencias sociales, proponiendo un monismo metodológico. Sin embargo, al referirse a (...) las ciencias sociales, señala que éstas han de realizar explicaciones basadas en tendencias que permitan construir modelos “en términos de individuos”, llamando a esto “individualismo metodológico.” Mostrando que en las ciencias sociales intervienen proposiciones históricas singulares, se hace presente la dificultad en torno a estas ciencias; en relación a esto explica que en la mayoría de las situaciones sociales hay un elemento de racionalidad, introduciendo así el “método de construcción racional o lógica” o “método cero.”. (shrink)

In his situational logic, Popper offers a model for social sciences which specifies how a social explanation of human actions can be scientific and objective. He also describes the specific kind of phenomena the social sciences can explain and predict. To perform this task, the model includes a desc..

In his The Poverty of Historicism 1 K.R. Popper and before him F. Kaufmann2 distinguish two broad classes of epistemological and methodological positions held in the social sciences: Antinaturalistic positions and pronaturalistic positions. These positions are distinguished with respect to their attitude regarding the applicability of the methods of the natural sciences, or rather what the representatives of the anti and pronaturalistic positions assume to be the method of the natural sciences. According to Popper and Kaufmann the representatives of antinaturalistic (...) positions hold that the methods of the natural sciences can not be applied in the social sciences, whereas the representatives of the pronaturalistic positions have the opposite view. This of course raises the question what views the representatives of the anti and pronaturalistic positions embrace with respect to the methods of the natural sciences. It is interesting to note, however, that Popper in his The Poverty of Historicism, indicates those views only briefly, the reasons presumably being the special tasks and aims he set himself in that analysis. These are primarily to show the disastrous political and social consequences of a false social science methodology and the invalidity of the ideas of historical necessity and that of laws of historical development. But it is well known that Popper analysed and discussed the methods and the philosophy of science with great rigour and acumen in his other books and articles and that he triggered a philosophical revolution in that field.3 Before Popper the prevailing. (shrink)

Until quite recently, some economic methodologists (particularly, those who began their careers in the late 1970s) were of the opinion that Karl Popper was misguided about economics. Some others claimed that Popper said little about economics. Yet, many economics students who began their appreciation of Popper after reading his Open Society and Its Enemies have quickly realized how easy that book is to understand because it is a generalization of neoclassical economics in terms of both methodological individualism and situational analysis. (...) While today it might be easy to complain that basing one's understanding of Popper on neoclassical economics leads to a narrow and useless appreciation of Popper, this too is misleading. The problem is not neoclassical economics but neoclassical economists. After all, Popper himself thought the best way to teach economists about his views concerning methodology was to emphasize that his views can easily be understood as a generalization of neoclassical economics. (shrink)

This volume examines why Sir Karl Popper's view of empirical falsifiability as the distinguishing characteristic of science has found appeal among economists.

The central argument of this interesting paper is that Popper appears to be inconsistent: on the one hand, he preaches methodological monism-scientific method in the social sciences is identical to scientific method in the natural sciences-and on the other hand he advocates “situational analysis” as the unique method of the social sciences. Situational analysis is nothing but our old neoclassical friend, the rationality principle-individual maximizing behavior subject to constraints-and thus, Popper seems to be saying, neoclassical economics is the only valid (...) kind of social science. (shrink)

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 states, “the development of economic analysis would (...) look a dismal affair through falsificationist spectacles.”. (shrink)

It has already been argued by Frazer and Boland (1983) that, interpreted in an instrumentalist fashion, Milton Friedman’s well known and much criticized 1953 paper on “The Methodology of Positive Economics”1 proved to be convergent with Popper's falsificationist philosophy of science2. I think that this comparison is flawed. For one can assuredly contest this interpretation in view of the fact that Popper always opposed any kind of instrumentalist philosophy of science3. It is not even clear that what Friedman has to (...) say on the intricate question of the status of theories and on the function of tests has anything to do with what Popper criticizes under the general category of “instrumentalism”. What I will do here is not so much to directly challenge the Frazer-Boland interpretation as to replace it with a completely new comparison of both methodologies in order to get a new look at Friedman's methodological stance. Of course, one has to focus only on the arguments that really are comparable and leave aside those that could easily be proved to be fundamentally different, if not plainly incompatible. But, as I will try to show, the exercise is worthwhile, for this new comparison will force us to reinterpret, at least partially, what seem to me to be the two central tenets of Friedman's methodological doctrine. Of course, in order to find convergence between Friedman's and Popper's views on economic methodology, we have to read.. (shrink)