A Review of Kuhnian and Lakatosian “Explanations” in Economics

modes of historical reconstruction (see for instance, Amariglio, 1988; Maki, 1992;
Backhouse, 1997; Weintraub, 1999; Hands, 1997,2001).

It seems that the followers of the Kuhnian and Lakatosian explanations in economics
could not respond in a convincing way to the number of criticisms that we saw. Thus,
economic methodologists have started to move away from such explanations. This is also
supported by the fact that in the last few years, the interest of historians of economic thought
and methodologists, concerning the ideas of Kuhn and Lakatos has greatly diminished.
However, as was observed, a large number of practicing economists continue to use the
basic outlines of these two philosophies of science. One can interpreter this, as an example
of persistence to a given theoretical framework or “mumpsimus” as J. Robinson has termed
this phenomenon. Theories of science which emphasize the role of historical, sociopolitical
and cultural factors might offer explanations for this persistence (i.e. Bloor, 1983).
Furthermore, “mumpsimus” to certain economic theories has been analysed by a number of
authors (see for instance Hill and Rouse, 1977; Arouh, 1987). The reluctance of many
practicing economists to abandon doubtful methodological approaches might be another
recent case of mumpsimus in the field of economics.

25

<<   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   >>

More intriguing information