Advertisement

A Classification Scheme for Epistemological Positions

  • Alexander Linsbichler
Chapter

Abstract

An analytical tool for the analysis of epistemological positions is presented in detail. The classification scheme employed is a slightly advanced version of Popper’s analysis and classification of epistemological positions as reformulated by Milford. The classification characterizes epistemological positions by means of reference to their solution of the problem of induction. Five inductivist and three deductivist positions prevalent in the history of economics are introduced and exemplified. Several preliminary results regarding the classification of Mises’ position are stated.

Keywords

Karl Popper Karl Milford Problem of induction Inductivism and deductivism Epistemology Classification scheme 

References

  1. ———. 2006. “Fanatical, Not Reasonable: A Short Correspondence Between Walter Block and Milton Friedman”. Journal of Libertarian Studies 20(3): 61–80.Google Scholar
  2. Böhm, Stephan. 1990. “The Austrian Tradition: Schumpeter and Mises”. In Neoclassical Economic Theory, 1870 to 1930, edited by Klaus Hennings and Warren J. Samuels, 201–249. Recent Economic Thought Series 20. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borges, Jorge L. 2000. “John Wilkins’ Analytical Language”. In Selected Non-Fictions, edited by Eliot Weinberger, 229–232. Penguin Book. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  4. Caldwell, Bruce, ed. 1984a. Appraisal and Criticism in Economics: A Book of Readings. Boston: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  5. ———. (1982) 2003. Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century. London, Boston: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2009. “A Skirmish in the Popper Wars: Hutchison versus Caldwell on Hayek, Popper, Mises, and Methodology”. Journal of Economic Methodology 16(3): 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carnap, Rudolf. 1936–1937. “Testability and Meaning”. Philosophy of Science 3–4(4,1): 419–471, 1–40.Google Scholar
  8. Di Iorio, Francesco. 2008. “Apriorism and Fallibilism: Mises and Popper on the Explanation of Action and Social Phenomena”. Nuova Civilta della Macchine 26(4): 5–32.Google Scholar
  9. Foucault, Michel. 1994. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Vintage Books Edition. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  10. Friedman, Milton. 2001. Essays in Positive Economics. Nachdr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gordon, David. 1994a. “The Philosophical Contributions of Ludwig von Mises”. The Review of Austrian Economics 7(1): 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 1994b. The Philosophical Origins of Austrian Economics. Expanded Monograph. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2014. “Mises and the Diminished A Priori.” http://mises.org/daily/6711/Mises-and-the-Diminished-a-priori.
  14. Hacohen, Malachi H. 2002. Karl Popper: The Formative Years, 1902–1945; Politics and Philosophy in Interwar Vienna. 1. Paperback ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hajek, Alan. 2011. “Interpretations of Probability.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/.
  16. ———. 1967. Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2008. Prices and Production and Other Works on Money, the Business Cycle, and the Gold Standard, edited by Joseph T. Salerno: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  18. Hülsmann, Jörg G. 1999. “Economic Science and Neoclassicism”. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 2(4): 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2007. Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  20. Hume, David. (1748) 2008. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Reissued. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kinsella, Stephan. 2001. “Against Intellectual Property”. Journal of Libertarian Studies 15(2): 1–53.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2006. “Realism and Abstraction in Economics: Aristotle and Mises versus Friedman”. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 9(3): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 2013. Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action – Praxeological Investigations. Auburn, AL: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Luhmann, Niklas. 2005. Social Systems. Reprinted. Writing Science. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 2012. Theory of Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 2013. Theory of Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lyon, Aidan. 2010. “Philosophy of Probability”. In Philosophies of the Sciences: A Guide, edited by Fritz Allhoff, 92–125. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ———. ed. 2009. The Methodology of Positive Economics: Reflections on the Milton Friedman Legacy. Cambridge, UK, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. McCaffrey, M. 2014. “Mises and Schumpeter: Friendly Rivals?” http://mises.org/daily/6659/Mises-and-Schumpeter-Friendly-Rivals.
  30. Milford, Karl. 1986. “Zu den Lösungsversuchen des Induktionsproblems und des Abgrenzungsproblems bei Carl Menger.” Dissertation, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 1989. Zu den Lösungsversuchen des Induktionsproblems und des Abgrenzungsproblems bei Carl Menger. Sitzungsberichte/Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 541. Wien: Verl. d. Österreich. Akad. d. Wiss.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 1992a. “Nationalism, Volksgeist, and the Methods of Economics: A Note on Ranke, Roscher, and Menger”. History of European Ideas 15: 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ———. 1992b. “‘Poppers Lösungsvorschlag des Abgrenzungsproblems und die Methoden der Sozialwissenschaften: Zum 90’. Geburtstag von Sir Karl Popper”. Wissenschaftspolitische Blätter 4: 503–513.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 1995. “Roscher’s Epistemological and Methodological Position – Its Importance for the Methodenstreit”. Journal of Economic Studies 22(3/4/5): 26–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ———. 2002. “Auf der Suche nach sicherem Wissen: Zur Wissenschaftstheorie von J.S.Mill”. In Studien zur Entwicklung der oekonomischen Theorie XIX, edited by Erich Streissler. Berlin: Duncker&Humblot.Google Scholar
  36. ———. 2004. “Inductivism in 19th Century German Economics”. In Induction and Deduction in the Sciences, edited by Friedrich Stadler, 273–292. Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, Institut ‘Wiener Kreis’ Society for the Advancement of the Scientific World Conception 11. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. ———. 2015. “Zur Entwicklung der Volkswirtschaftslehre an der Universität Wien von 1763 bis 1976”. In Reflexive Innensichten aus der Universität: Disziplinengeschichten zwischen Wissenschaft, Gesellschaft und Politik, edited by Karl Fröschl, Gerd B. Müller, Thomas Olechowski, and Brigitta Schmidt-Lauber, 341–354 650 Jahre Universität Wien – Aufbruch ins neue Jahrhundert; Bd. 4. Göttingen: V&R unipress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Milford, Karl, and M. Cerman 2011. “Scheinsatzpositionen als Begründungsversuche der theoretischen Ökonomie: Schumpeters ‘Das Wesen und der hauptinhalt der theoretischen Nationalökonomie’”. In Die vielen Gesichter des wirtschaftlichen Wandels: Beiträge zur Innovationsgeschichte. Festschrift für Dieter Stiefel, edited by P. Berger, P. Eigner, and A. Resch, 55–82. Wien: LIT-Verlag.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 1933. Grundprobleme der Nationalökonomie: Untersuchungen über Verfahren, Aufgaben und Inhalt der Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftslehre. Jena: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
  40. ———. (1962) 1990. “Epistemological Relativism in the Sciences of Human Action”. In Money, Method, and the Market Process: Essays by Ludwig Von Mises, edited by Richard M. Ebeling, 37–51. Auburn, AL: Praxeology Press of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  41. ———. (1949) 1998. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. The Scholar’s Edition. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  42. ———. (1933) 2003. Epistemological Problems of Economics. 3rd edn. Auburn, AL: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  43. ———. (1969) 2003. The Historical Setting of the Austrian School of Economics. Online Edition. New Rochelle: Arlington House, Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  44. ———. (1957) 2005. Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution. Liberty Fund Library of the Works of Ludwig Von Mises. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  45. ———. (1934) 2012. “Maxims for the Discussion of Methodological Problems in the Social Sciences: Paper Delivered at the Private Seminar”. In Monetary and Economic Policy Problems Before, During, and After the Great War, edited by Richard M. Ebeling, 325–332. Selected writings of Ludwig von Mises /ed. and with an introd. by Richard M. Ebeling; Vol. 1. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  46. ———. (1962) 2012. The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method. Princeton: Martino Fine Books.Google Scholar
  47. ———. 2008. “Austrian Realists.” http://mises.org/daily/3028/Austrian-Realists.
  48. Nagel, Ernest. 1961. The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Nelson, Leonard. 1949. “The Critical Method and the Relation of Psychology to Philosophy”. In Socratic Method and Critical Philosophy: Selected Essays, 105–157. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  50. ———. 1970. Progress and Regress in Philosophy: From Hume and Kant to Hegel and Fries, edited by Julius Kraft. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  51. ———. 1975. Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde 1: Der Zauber Platons. München: Francke.Google Scholar
  52. ———. 1980. Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde 2: Falsche Propheten. 6. Aufl. Uni-Taschenbücher 473. München: Francke.Google Scholar
  53. ———. 1983. Realism and the Aim of Science. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  54. ———. (1960) 2000. “Three Views Concerning Human Knowledge”. In Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 5 edn. (rev.). reprint, 97–119. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. ———. (1933) 2010. Die beiden Grundprobleme der Erkenntnistheorie: Aufgrund von Manuskripten aus den Jahren 1930–1933. 3. Aufl., durchges. und erg. Gesammelte Werke in deutscher Sprache /Karl R. Popper; 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  56. Radnitzky, G. 1995. “Reply to Hoppe – On Apriorism in Austrian Economics”. In Values and Society: Values and the Social Order Volume 1, edited by G. Radnitzky and H. Bouillon. Repr, 189–194. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  57. ———. 1987. “Breaking Out of the Walsrasian Box: The Case of Schumpeter and Hansen”. Review of Austrian Economics 1: 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. ———. 2002. “Milton Friedman Unraveled”. Journal of Libertarian Studies 16(4): 37–54.Google Scholar
  59. Schiebinger, Londa L. 2004. Nature’s Body: Gender in the Making of Modern Science. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Schmelzer, Ilja. 2016. “Against Absolute Certainty.” http://ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/againstCertainty.pdf.
  61. Schumpeter, Joseph. (1908) 1980. Methodological Individualism. Bruxelles: Institutum Europaeum.Google Scholar
  62. ———. ed. (1908) 2010. The Nature and Essence of Economic Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publication.Google Scholar
  63. Schweinzer, Paul. 2000a. “Two Competing Paradigms in Austrian Economic Theory”. Notizie di Politeia 16(59): 44–66.Google Scholar
  64. ———. 2000b. “Two Competing Paradigms in Austrian Economic Theory”. Notizie di Politeia 59: 44–66.Google Scholar
  65. ———. 1996. “In Defense of Extreme (fallibilistic) Apriorism”. Journal of Libertarian Studies 12(1): 179–192.Google Scholar
  66. Sober, Elliott. 1999. “Testability”. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 73(2): 47–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stadler, Friedrich, I. Kieseppä, and N. Koertge. 1999. “Science – A House built on Sand? A Conversation with Noretta Koertge”. In Epistemological and Experimental Perspectives on Quantum Physics, edited by D. Greenberger, Wolfgang L. Reiter, and Anton Zeilinger, 279–301. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  68. Herbener, Jeffrey M., Hoppe, Hans-Hermann, Salerno, Joseph T. 1998. “Introduction to the Scholar’s Edition”. In Human Action. A Treatise in Economics. The Scholar’s Edition. authored by Ludwig von Mises, v-xxiv, Auburn: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  69. Scheall, Scott. 2015. “Hayek the Apriorist?”. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 37(1), 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Linsbichler
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ViennaWienAustria

Personalised recommendations