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

« Quote of the Day | Main | Powell on Sweatshops and Martin at AidWatch »


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

The "scientism" of today is the overuse -- and gross misuse most of the time -- of math. Typically, the wrong kind of math. It can be worse than physics envy, especially when people mistake mathematical outcomes for reality.

I'm no expert, by my recollection is that Menger was bogged down in work on the next books in his intended multivolume book on economics, of which the _Principles_ was intended simply as the first book.

Some of that work was finally published (with a good deal of editorial work) by Menger's son.

Menger published his work on the explanatory strategy of the social science, and the various problems raised by that strategy for traditional views of demarcation and induction. This is the book that most influenced Hayek. Of course, Menger also published a famous paper attacking historicism. Also very "Popperian" in various ways.

One wonders how much of Menger's work Popper had read.

It would be something magical if Popper reinvented so much of Menger without having read any of it.

And Karl Milford's work on Menger is well worth reading.

David Gordon,

I haven't thought seriously about hermeneutics in well over 15 years. I do think about it whenever Don's work gets brought up. In fact, ironically, I just had to think about Don seriously for two papers I just did on symposiums related to his ideas. So I thought about these issues once again. But if you talk to the students that have been through our program -- Stringham through D'Amico, e.g., the methodological emphasis has been on Mises and Hayek and more specifically on methodological individualism, invisible hand explanations, and institutional analysis. A lot of what the focus has been on is the comparative methodological approach in political economy. In particular, the analytic narrative approach that has been pursued by Weingast, Bates, Greif, etc.

So while I don't necessarily disavow earlier writings of mine, I don't emphasize those writings when it comes to methodology these days. We ran a methodology workshop last year for our graduate students. We began with some discussion of Polanyi, and Quine, but focused primarily on Menger's Investigations, Mises's Epistemological Problems, and Hayek's Counter-Revolution.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about what we teach and discuss here at GMU. A lot has changed since the 1980s.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books