Coping with inconsistencies: Examples from the social sciences
AbstractIn this paper we present two case studies on inconsistencies in the social sciences. The first is devoted to sociologist George Caspar Homans and his exchange theory. We argue that his account of how he arrived at his theory is highly misleading, because it ignores the inconsistencies he had to cope with. In the second case study we analyse how John Maynard Keynes coped with the inconsistency between classical economic theory and real economic conditions in developing his path-breaking theory.
Ahiakpor, J.C.W. (ed.) (1998). Keynes and the Classics Reconsidered. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Backhouse, R.E. (2002). The Penguin History of Economics. London: Penguin Books.
Blaug, M. (1976). “Kuhn versus Lakatos or Paradigms versus Research Programmes in the History of Economics”, in S. Latsis (ed.), Method and Appraisal in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 149–180.
Elster, J. (1989). Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Galbraith, J.K. (1987). A History of Economics. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Gärdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in Flux. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Homans, G. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. [all page references to the British edition, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961].
Homans, G. (1967). The Nature of Social Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Homans, G. (1974). Social Behaviour: Its Elementary Forms (revised edition). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Keynes, J.M. (1973). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.
London: Macmillan (the original edition dates from 1936).
Mulhearn, Ch., and H.R. Vane (1999). Economics. London: MacMillan Press.
Ritzer, G. (1992). Sociological Theory (3 rd edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Van Bouwel, J., and E. Weber (2002). “The Living Apart Together Relationship of Causation and Explanation. A Comment on Jean Lachappelle”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 32 (2002), 560–569.
Weber, E. (1998). “Prudential Arguments in the Realism Debate”, Logique et Analyse 164, 301–312.
Weber, E., and J. Van Bouwel (2002), “Symposium on Explanations and Social Ontology 3: Can We Dispense with Structural Explanations of Social Facts?”, Economics and Philosophy 18, 261–277.
How to Cite
Number of views and downloads: 70
Number of citations: 0