The “science wars” are a contentious, ongoing series of debates about the nature of knowledge and the proper role of the scientific method. The participants take many forms, but always central to the controversy are postmodern ideas that challenge commonly accepted understandings of the objectivity of data, science, and sometimes even reality. In this paper, we consider the relevance of these debates for the practice of economics. Ultimately we propose that these debates present two opportunities and a significant challenge to the discipline of economics. The opportunities are: 1) to incorporate post-positivist philosophy of science as a way to better interpret the meanings that become attached to institutions, which is particularly important for studies of political hierarchy and oppression, and 2) to do better empirical work by robustly incorporating interpretation into the gathering and analysis of data. The challenge is to do this work without abandoning economic theory itself, preserving the critically important insights of the universal logic of human choice while abandoning the illusion of a single best scientific method.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Also called the Sokal Affair.
See: (Lavoie 2011, 92 fn 2) for Lavoie’s original influences in the growth of knowledge literatures.
See: (Boettke et al. 2004) for an extended treatment of the relationship between the pragmatist tradition and Austrian economics.
See: (Lavoie 2011, 96 fn 7) for the list of Lavoie’s original hermeneutic influences.
To which he added a footnote: “Disregard of this requirement is, in my view, the only serious flaw in the otherwise excellent essay (Friedman 1953)” (Machlup 1955, 17 n 42). For more on the relationship between (Machlup 1955) and the Austrian tradition, see: (Rothbard 1957), (Zanotti and Cachanosky 2015), and (Langlois and Koppl 1991).
See: Martin 2015, 24.
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.
Aronowitz, S. (1996). The politics of the science wars. Social Text, no. 46/47, 177–197.
Ashman, K. (2001). After the science wars. London: Routledge.
Bates, R. H., Greif, A., Levi, M., Rosenthal, J.-L., & Weingast, B. R. (1998). Analytic narratives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Blaug, M. (1998). Disturbing currents in modern economics. Challenge, 41(3), 11–34.
Boettke, P. J. (1993). Why perestroika failed : The politics and economics of socialist transformation. London: Routledge.
Boettke, P. J. (1998a). Is there an intellectual market niche for Austrian economics? 4.
Boettke, P. J. (1998b). Rational choice and human agency in economics and sociology: Exploring the weber-austrian connection. In H. Giersch (Ed.), Merits and limits of markets (pp. 53–81). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Boettke, P. J. (1998c). Ludwig von Mises. In J. Davis, D. Wade Hands, & U. Mäki (Eds.), The handbook of economics methodology (pp. 534–540). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Boettke, P. J. (2004). Obituary. Don Lavoie (1950–2001). Journal of Economic Methodology, 11(3), 377–379.
Boettke, P. J., & Koppl, R. (2001). Introduction to Schuetz. Review of Austrian Economics, 14, 111–117.
Boettke, P. J., & Storr, V. H. (2002). Post-classical political economy: Polity, society and economy in weber, Mises and Hayek. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 61, 161–191.
Boettke, P. J., & Storr, V. H. (2015 ). Foreward to the Mercatus Center Edition. Rivalry and Central Planning: The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered. Mercatus Center at George Mason University, ix-xix.
Boettke, P. J., Lavoie, D., & Storr, V. (2004). The subjectivist methodology of Austrian economics and Dewey’s theory of inquiry. In Dewey, Pragmatism and Economic Methodology, edited by Elias Khalil. Vol. 20044736. Routledge.
Boettke, P. J., Coyne, C. J., & Leeson, P. T. (2008). Institutional stickiness and the new development economics. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 67(2), 331–358.
Boettke, P., Palagashvili, L., & Lemke, J. (2013). Riding in cars with boys: Elinor Ostrom’s adventures with the police. Journal of Institutional Economics, 9(4), 407–425.
Buchanan, James M. (1999 ). Cost and choice. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Inc.
Caldwell, B. (1982). Beyond positivism economic methodology in the twentieth century. London: Allen & Unwin.
Caldwell, B. (1991). Clarifying popper. Journal of Economic Literature, 29(1), 1–33.
Caldwell, B. (2013). Of positivism and the history of economic thought. Southern Economic Journal, 79(4), 753–767.
Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2015). Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(49), 15078–15083.
Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2017). Mortality and morbidity in the 21st century. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2017(1), 397–476. https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2017.0005
Chamlee-Wright, E. (1997). The cultural foundations of economic development urban female entrepreneurship in Ghana. Foundations of the Market Economy Series. London ; Routledge.
Chamlee-Wright, E. (2011). Operationalizing the interpretive turn: Deploying qualitative methods: Toward an economics of meaning. The Review of Austrian Economics, 24, 157–170.
Chamlee-Wright, E., Storr, V. H., & Storr, N. M. (2015). How we came back : Voices from Post-Katrina New Orleans. Arlington: Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., Saez, E., & Turner, N. (2014). Is the United States still a land of opportunity? Recent trends in intergenerational mobility. American Economic Review, 104(5), 141–147.
Colander, D., Follmer, H., Haas, A., Goldberg, M., Juselius, K., Kirman, A., Lux, T., & Sloth, B. (2009). The financial crisis and the systemic failure of academic economics. Middlebury College Economics Discussion Paper No. 09-01.
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. (2011, January). The financial crisis inquiry report: Final report of the National Commission on the causes of the financial and economic crisis in the United States.
Fourcade, M., Ollion, E., & Algan, Y. (2015). The superiority of economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(1), 89–114.
Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics. In Essays in positive economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Geertz, C. (1974). ‘From the native’s point of view’: On the nature of anthropological understanding. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 28(1), 26–45.
Gould, S. J. (1996 ). The mismeasure of man. W. W. Norton & Company.
Gross, P. R., & Levitt, N. (1994). Higher superstition : The academic left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hamermesh, D. S. (2013). Six decades of top economics publishing: Who and how? Journal of Economic Literature, 51(1), 162–172.
Hausman, D. M. (1992). The inexact and separate science of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752032
Hayek, F. A. (1943). The facts of the social sciences. Ethics, 54(1), 1–13.
Hayek, F. A. (1989). The pretence of knowledge. The American Economic Review, 79(6), 3–7.
Koppl, R. (1997). Mises and Schutz on ideal types. Cultural Dynamics, 9(1), 63–76.
Lachmann, L. M. (1971). The legacy of max weber. Glendessary Press.
Lachmann, Ludwig M. (1978 ). Capital and its structure. Kansas City: Sheed, Andrews & McMeel.
Langlois, R. N., & Koppl, R. (1991). Fritz Machlup and Marginalism: A reevaluation. Methodus, 3(2), 86–102.
Lavoie, D. (1986). Euclideanism versus Hermenutics: A reinterpretation of Misesian Apriorism. In I. M. Kirzner (Ed.), Subjectivism, intelligibility, and economic understanding: Essays in honor of Ludwig M. Lachman on his eightieth birthday (pp. 192–210). London: Macmillan.
Lavoie, D. (1986. 1990). Economics and hermeneutics. London; Routledge.
Lavoie, D. (1986. 2011). The interpretive dimension of economics: Science, hermeneutics, and praxeology. The Review of Austrian Economics 24 (2): 91–128.
Lazear, E. P. (2000). Economic Imperialism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(1), 99–146.
Leeson, P. T., & Boettke, P. J. (2006). Was Mises right? Review of Social Economy, 64(2), 247–265.
Lemke, J. S. (2015). An Austrian approach to class structure. In New thinking in austrian political economy, 19:167–92. Advances in Austrian Economics 19. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Lemke, J. S. (2018). Groups, sorting, and inequality in constitutional political economy. In James M. Buchanan - a theorist of political economy and social philosophy, ed. Richard E. Wagner. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 441–65.
Lemke, J., & Lingenfelter, J. (2017). A practical approach to understanding: The possibilities and limitations of applied work in political economy. In The Austrian and Bloomington schools of political economy, 22:81–102. Advances in Austrian Economics 22. Emerald Publishing Limited.
Lewis, P. (2003). Recent developments in economic methodology: The rhetorical and ontological turns. Foundations of Science, 8(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022489528227
Lindsay, J., Boghossian, P., & Pluckrose, H. (2018). Academic grievance studies and the corruption of scholarship. Areo, October 2, 2018. https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/. Accessed 12 Mar 2019
Lowes, S., & Montero, E. (2018). The legacy of colonial medicine in Central Africa. Working paper available at https://scholar.harvard.edu/slowes/publications/colonial-medicine. Accessed 12 Mar 2019
Lucas, R. E. (1972). Expectations and the neutrality of money. Journal of Economic Theory, 4(2), 103–124.
Machlup, F. (1955). The problem of verification in economics. Southern Economic Journal, 22(1), 1.
Martin, A. (2015). Austrian methodology: A review and synthesis. In P. J. Boettke & C. J. Coyne (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Austrian economics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
McCloskey, D. N. (1983). The rhetoric of economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 21(2), 481–517.
McCloskey, D. N. (1985). The rhetoric of economics. University of Wisconsin Press.
Mises, L. (1957). Theory and history: An interpretation of social and economic evolution. Yale University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. Cambridge University Press.
Parsons, K., ed. (2003). The science wars: Debating scientific knowledge and technology. Prometheus Books.
Pierce, A. (2008). The Queen asks why no one saw the credit crunch coming. Telegraph. November 5, 2008. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/3386353/The-Queen-asks-why-no-one-saw-the-credit-crunch-coming.html. Accessed 13 Aug 2018
Pietrykowski, B. (1996). Alfred Schutz and the economists. History of Political Economy., 28, 219–244.
Popper, K. (1934). Logik Der Forschung.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson Education.
Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton University Press.
Prendergast, C. (1986). Alfred Schutz and the Austrian school of economics. American Journal of Sociology, 92(1), 1–26.
Prychitko, D. L. (1994). Ludwig Lachmann and the interpretive turn in economics. Advances in Austrian Economics, 303–319.
Rizzo, M. (1982). “Mises and Lakatos: A reformulation of Austrian methodology.” In Method, process, and Austrian economics, edited by Israel M. Kirzner.
Romero, M. (2018). 2019 theme: Engaging social justice for a better world. American Sociological Association. http://www.asanet.org/annual-meeting-2019/2019-theme. Accessed 21 Sept 2018
Ross, A., ed. (1996). Science wars. Durham: Duke University Press.
Ross, D., & Kincaid, H. (2009). Introduction: The new philosophy of economics - Oxford handbooks (p. 33).
Rothbard, M. N. (1957). In defense of ‘extreme Apriorism. Southern Economic Journal, 23(3), 314. https://doi.org/10.2307/1054221
Samuelson, P. A. (1947). Foundations of economic analysis. Harvard.
Schmidt, L. K. (2006). Understanding hermeneutics. Understanding movements in modern thought. Acumen.
Sokal, A. (1996a). Transgressing the boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text, 47(46), 217–252.
Sokal, A. (1996b). A physicist experiments with cultural studies. Lingua Franca, April 15, 1996. http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/lingua_franca_v4.pdf. Accessed 4 Apr 2018
Storr, V. H. (2004). Enterprising slaves and master pirates: Understanding economic life in the Bahamas. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Storr, V. H. (2010a). The facts of the social sciences are what people believe and think. In P. Boettke (Ed.), Handbook of Austrian economics.
Storr, V. H. (2010b). Schütz on objectivity and spontaneous orders. Schutzian Research. A Yearbook of Worldly Phenomenology and Qualitative Social Science, 2(1), 165–181.
Storr, V. H. (2017). Ludwig Lachmann’s peculiar status within Austrian economics. The Review of Austrian Economics, 32, 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-017-0403-2
The Economist. (2009). What went wrong with economics, July 16, 2009. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2009/07/16/what-went-wrong-with-economics. Accessed 13 Aug 2018
Zanotti, G. J., & Cachanosky, N. (2015). Implications of Machlup’s interpretation of Mises’s epistemology. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 37(01), 111–138.
The authors wish to think Peter Boettke, Bruce Caldwell, Virgil Henry Storr, and the participants in the Austrian School of Economics Workshop at the Wirth Institute for Austrian and Central European Studies at the University of Alberta. They provided many valuable comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are our own.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Lemke, J., Kroencke, J. Methodological confusions and the science wars in economics. Rev Austrian Econ 33, 87–106 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-019-00466-9