Linguagem, procedimentos e pragmatismo na tradição neoclássica
DOI:
https://doi.org/101590/1980-53573146mblKeywords:
Methodology, Neoclassical tradition, PragmatismAbstract
The paper discusses the criticisms put forward by Duaer, Medeiros e Painceira (2001) to the interpretation Igive to severo/ methodological aspects ofthe neoclassical research program. The Identification ofa hard core in the neoclassical program seems to present severa! difficuíties given the apparent nonexistence ofconsensualimplications among the many neoclassical models. In myviewpoint. the neoclassical program does not share a common view ofwhat should be implied by the theory, but a set ofprocedures that should be followed in formal and empiricol analysis. The development offormal arguments is akin to the process of mathematical development. as discussed by Lakatos (1976). The large set ofabstract concepts and formal modelsresulting from this process. often with contradictory assumptions or implications, characterizes a language with almost no consensualimplication about economicvariables. The severo/theoretical approaches in the neoclassical tradition are characterized by the choice ofthe particular formal model that should be used as well as by the set ofauxiliary assumptions that are considered to be acceptable. The paper concludes discussing the inevitable difficulties associated with any rationalresearch program that intends to be realistic. I believe that the avenue taken by the neoclassical research program rests on the pragmatic approach characterized to some extent by the use ofthe models' empirical implications in the process ofproposing and redefming beliefs on economic variables behavior.
Downloads
References
ARIDA, P. A história do pensamento econômico. In: REGO, J. M., Retórica da Economia. São Paulo: Editora 34, 1996.
COSTA, Newton C. A. da. O conhecimento cientifico. Discurso Editorial, 1999.
DUAYER, M.; MEDEIROS, J. L.; PAINCEIRA, J. P. A miséria do instrumentalismo na tradição neoclássica. Estudos Econômicos, v. 30, n. 4, p. 725-785, out./dez. 2001.
FEYERABEND, P. K. [1975]. Against method. 3a ed. Londres: Verso, 1993.
GARDENEORS, P. Knowledge in flux. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1988.
GEANAICOPLOS, J. D. Common knowledge. In: AUMANN, R. J.;
HART, O. (eds.), Handbook of game theory. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B. V 1994.
KUHN, T. S. The trouble with the historical philosophy of science. Department of History os Science, Harvard University, 1992.
LAKATOS, I. Proofs and refutations. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
LAUDAN, L. Beyondpositivism and relativism. Boulder: Westview Press, 1996.
LISBOA, M.B. A miséria da crítica heterodoxa. Primeira parte: sobre as críticas. Revista de Economia Contemporânea, UERJ, 2, p. 5-66, jul./ dez. 1997.
LISBOA, M.B. Amiséria da crítica heterodoxa. Segunda parte: método e equilíbrio na tradição neoclássica. Revista deEconomia Contemporânea, UERJ, 3, p. 113-151, jan./jun.. 1998a.
LISBOA, M.B. A análise formal e a construção téorica neoclássica. ANPEC, 1998b.
McCLOSKEY, D. The rhetoric of economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 21, 1983.
McCLOSKEY, D. Knowledge and persuasion in economics New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
MOBJUS, S. The common prior assumption in economic theory. Economic Theory Discussion Paper #1999, Cambridge University, 1994.
ROUNET, S. O cativeiro da razão. São Paulo: Editora Brasiliense, 1985.
SHACKLE, G. L. S. A studenCs pilgrimage. Banca Nazionale dei Lavoro Quartely Review. 1983.
SUPPE, E. The structure ofscientific theories. 2a ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977.
SUPPE, E. The semmtic conception oftheories and scientific realism. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, Chicago, 1989.
VAN FRAASSEN, B. The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2001 Marcos de Barros Lisboa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
By submitting an article, the author authorizes its publication and attests that it has not been submitted to any other journal. The original article is considered final. Articles selected for publication are proofread for grammatical and orthographic errors. The journal does not pay rights for published articles. The Institute of Economic Research from the School of Economics, Business and Accounting of the University of São Paulo (Instituto de Pesquisas Econômicas da Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo) owns the journal's copyright.
