The paperback edition of The Invisible Hand in Economics: How Economists Explain Unintended Social Consequences (Routledge) is available from Amazon.com.
|
||||
|
The paperback edition of The Invisible Hand in Economics: How Economists Explain Unintended Social Consequences (Routledge) is available from Amazon.com.
Here is Doug Mackenzie’s formulation of Catch 22 for HET at the SHOE list:
I especially like the second part. This was a response to a post which was reporting that at least three distinguished professional economists (full professors) did not know about Frank Knight. You are advised to read the entire tread. “A history of observation in economics” conference organisers: Harro Maas & Mary Morgan The annual HOPE Conference in 2011 will take place in late April or early May of that year, and the topic for the meeting will be the history of observation in economics (see discussion below). TINT is an collective endeavour investigating interdisciplinary and intertheoretic dynamics in the social sciences and beyond, mainly from the point of view of philosophy of science, but historical and social perspectives are also supported. TINT is sponsored by the Academy of Finland and is located at the Department of Philosophy of the University of Helsinki. For further details, including current sub-projects, team members, and publications, please check http://www.helsinki.fi/tint Previously I have announced that we (Uskali Mäki and me) were organizing a special session on pluralism and heterodoxy in economics at the EAEPE 2009 conference in Amsterdam. If you missed this event, you may still get a taste of it below. (You are especially missing the lively and fruitful discussion at the end.) Before you proceed please note that a rather strange comment concerning this session appeared in the Heterodox Economics Newsletter. The editor of the newsletter Fred Lee makes the following comment concerning the session:
EAEPE encourages pluralism and welcomes heterodox approaches. The special session itself was pluralistic. And no unified view emerged at the end of it. The discussion at the end was lively and was full of differing views on pluralism and heterodoxy in economics. The aim of the special session was to open David Colander’s views to discussion. And I think we have accomplished just that. Uskali Mäki, Geoff Hodgson and Dimitris Milonakis presented their comments and criticism concerning David Colander’s paper. Moreover, at the end of the session scholars such as Ben Fine made extensive comments on Colander’s views. For these reasons I do not understand how Fred Lee could say that the sessions “intent was to make heterodox economists and their graduate students feel unwelcome at EAEPE.” Our aim was to discuss different views on pluralism and heterodoxy in economics, and David Colander’s paper was in fact a very good target paper for doing that. David Colander’s paper “Moving Beyond the Rhetoric of Pluralism” is available at EAEPE website and could be downloaded by clicking here. We are planning to publish the comments by Uskali Mäki, Geoff Hodgson and Dimitris Milonakis online (at the EAEPE web site) for future discussion. For now, you could read Colander’s paper and watch the videos below and join the discussion. David Colander’s talk at EAEPE Conference 2009 (8 November 2009, Amsterdam) The talk is based on David Colander’s “Moving Beyond the Rhetoric of Pluralism”. The paper is available at EAEPE website and could be downloaded by clicking here. Comments by Geoff Hodgson, Uskali Mäki and Dimitris Milonakis are below. Geoff Hodgson’s comments on Colander’s paper: And Uskali Mäki’s comments: (Sorry for the low quality of the video. This was filmed with a mobile phone.) And finally, Dimitris Milonakis’ comments. (Note that this is only a part of the talk. The other half of the talk could not be recorded because of a technical problem.) ![]() EAEPE 2009 Conference Venue We are organizing a special session on Pluralism and Heterodoxy in Economics at this years EAEPE conference. The session will be organized around David Colander’s paper entitled “Moving Beyond the Rhetoric of Pluralism: Suggestions for an “Inside-the-Mainstream” Heterodoxy “. The discussants are Geoff Hodgson, Dimitris Milonakis & Uskali Mäki. You may also be interested in the following sessions concerning Economic Methodology (Research Area A) Saturday 7 November, 08h45-10h45 Research area A – Room: E0.03
Saturday 7 November, 11h00-13h00 Research area A – Room: E0.03
Saturday 7 November, 14h30-16h30 Research area A – Room: E0.03
Saturday 7 November, 16h45-18h45 Research area A – Room: E0.03
Sunday 8 November, 08h45-10h45 Research area A – Room: E0.03
Sunday 8 November, 11h00-13h00 Research area A – Room: E0.03
More info at http://eaepe.org/ You already know Krugman’s “How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?“. You may want to read the following: Also see: Barry Eichengreen’s piece. — Thanks to Greg Mankiw and Ceyhun Elgin for the pointers. Mark Blaug’s review of The Invisible Hand in Economics is here. Here is how the review starts:
A new issue of The Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics (EJPE) is available online at http://ejpe.org Latest issue of EJPE is full of interesting articles (once again). I especially recommend Jack Vromen’s “The booming economics-made-fun genre: more than having fun, but less than economics imperialism“. It is a must read. Photo source: Wikimedia Commons, File: 800px-Financialcrisisconsumerspendings.JPG
These are Paul Krugman’s words. You may read the full article here. The question is the following: Will philosophers of economics come to the rescue? |
||||
|
Copyright © 2010 N. Emrah Aydınonat - All Rights Reserved |
||||