Since natural science endeavours to reveal the hidden causal foundations of the phenomena of the world, as well illustrated by the Ptolemy through to the Newton episode from the history of astronomy and physics example (in a previous blog post), why would modern orthodox neoclassical economics not seek to do the same thing in economics? In short, why doesn't it pursue a scientific realist approach in economics?
Given that scientific realism is the most plausible view of science within contemporary philosophy of science, it would be fair to say that modern orthodox neoclassical economics through its core Walrasian or general equilibrium theory of a perfectly competitive market economy is simply out of step with one of the main aims of contemporary science.
On this topic, let's put it like this. If doing Approach A is the best way of producing a fairly accurate and truthful account of something in terms of its underlying, hidden causal foundations, and there are no good reasons for not doing so, then one should do Approach A over any alternatives (from Approach B...Z). To not do so, would be to ignore some sound philosophical advice. Consequently, one would be pursuing an irrational approach to science.
To put it in metaphorical terms, it's like choosing not to use a torch when looking for your keys in a dark room at night. Clearly, you need a torch to do this kind of thing!
In light of this, we can at least say here that one of the reasons for modern orthodox neoclassical economics not choosing to follow the scientific realist approach of the natural sciences is because it irrationally ignores some good, sound philosophical reasons for doing so. As a result, it chooses the wrong scientific approach: a non-realist or idealist approach (as I've said before).
No comments:
Post a Comment