WHY ECONOMICS IS AN EVOLUTIONARY, MATHEMATICAL SCIENCE: HOW COULD VEBLEN’S VIEW OF ECONOMICS HAVE BEEN SO DIFFERENT THAN PEIRCE’S?
James R. Wible
Source record
Source: Crossref
Published: Jul 6, 2021
DOI: 10.1017/s1053837220000450
Open original source ↗Source abstract
More than a century ago, one of the most famous essays ever written in American economics appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Economics: “Why is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science?” There, Thorstein Veblen claimed that economics was too dominated by a mechanistic view to address the problems of economic life. Since the world and the economy had come to be viewed from an evolutionary perspective after Charles Darwin, it was rather straightforward to argue that the increasingly abstract mathematical character of economics was non-evolutionary. However, Veblen had studied with a first-rate intellect, Charles Sanders Peirce, attending his elementary logic class. If Peirce had written about the future of economics in 1898, it would have been very different than Veblen’s essay. Peirce could have written that economics should become an evolutionary mathematical science and that much of classical and neoclassical economics could be interpreted from an evolutionary perspective.
Evidence graph
No public relationships recorded yet.
Integrity note: This page is a factual metadata record created by deterministic ingestion. It is not a claim that the work moves a mathematical frontier or has been independently verified.