While economic methodologists seem to be increasingly dissatisfied with Lakatos's criteria of appraisal, many (internalist) historians of economic thought continue to rely on typically Lakatosian categories in order to identify portions of economic analysis whose historical development is to be 'rationally' reconstructed. This historiographic approach, however, prevents economists from realizing that Lakatosian novel facts may be 'new' not only because previously unknown, but even because previously inexistent. To deny this possibility is tantamount to believing in an incredibly strong version. of methodological monism according to which social sciences deal with a subject-matter as immutable over time as that of natural science.
|Place of Publication||København|
|Publisher||Institut for Industriøkonomi og Virksomhedsstrategi, Handelshøjskolen i København|
|Number of pages||28|
|Publication status||Published - 1999|
|Series||Working Paper / Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy. Copenhagen Business School|
Paper prepared for the group in Research in Strategy, Process and Economic Organization, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy, Copenhagen Business School, May 21, 1999.