Abstract
Garnett and Boettke both seek to identify the appropriate behavior for the representative scientist. The social structure of science is better represented, however, with a heterogeneous agent model. Social epistemology and epistemological naturalism provide context for the argument against representative agent methodology. Asking whether individual scientists should "commit themselves to an approach and pursue it doggedly" or make "a professional commitment to intellectual tolerance, openness, and broad-mindedness" is like asking whether it is better to be a bouncer or a bookkeeper. The question depends on particulars that vary from person to person. Down with representative agent methodology. Up with diversity.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 43-55 |
Number of pages | 13 |
Journal | Review of Austrian Economics |
Volume | 24 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Mar 2011 |
Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- Apriorism
- Epistemological naturalism
- Experimental epistemology
- Methodology
- Peter Boettke
- Psychologism
- Robert Garnett
- Social epistemology
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- General Economics, Econometrics and Finance