September 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  
Blog powered by Typepad

« Ronald Coase "Markets, Firms, and Property Rights" | Main | Three New Pieces »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

If I'd known that that was how to get you to read it, I'd have put some really annoying anti-Austrian stuff in my last book! Or maybe I did: after all, Joel Mokyr said he liked it!

Mirowski has gone off the deep end in his latest.

It's about as dishonest and as full of leftis hackery as you can get and still produce something still in the orbit of history.

Bruce Caldwell has already adequately replied to Mirowski on the Hayek angle in a paper I linked to some time ago on the "Taking Hayek Seriously" blog.

I've concluded from my interactions that something very political is driving his work, almost like some weird and deep Post Modernist / historicist / or Marxist conspiritorial understanding of science, history and economics.

When directly engaged on the philosophy of science and the nature
of economic explanation, Mirowski shows no genuine interest in the topic, other than as a political topic and a topic for "decomstruction" or ideological "unmasking".

That's my impression.

Hello, maybe this can be of help for you and your readers: I have just added a Reference List (http://crisismaven.wordpress.com/references/) to my economics blog with economic data series, history, bibliographies etc. for students & researchers. Currently over 200 meta sources, it will in the next days grow to over a thousand. Check it out and if you miss something, feel free to leave a comment.

Greg Ransom:
Unfortunately, Caldwell´s paper does not seem to be online anymore. :-(

http://hayekcenter.org/?p=475

I should say I'm a big fan of Mirowski as a historian of ideas. What I don't get is what seems to be his underlying historicism and politically charged epistemic nihilism -- and least this is the "feel" one gets from his writing.

He doesn't have a convincing underlying understanding of the nature of economic explanation or science itself.

I loved the editorial.It is very interesting.Thank you for the information

I mean... as semi-official ship's photographer?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books