Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    McCloskey's philosophical position that epistemological s... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    McCloskey's philosophical position that epistemological standards should be abandoned is hard to defend

    Skepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Epistemological standards in science are not merely conventional—Lakatos's methodology of scientific research programmes shows they track genuine empirical progress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Abandoning standards wholesale conflates the failure of a specific standard with the impossibility of any normative epistemological criteria.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.McCloskey's rhetorical turn cannot itself be evaluated without some meta-level epistemic standard, making total abandonment self-defeating.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Popper's fallibilism shows that standards can be revised without being abandoned—failed predictions refine methodology rather than justify its elimination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Economics' predictive failures are better addressed by Lakatosian progressive problem-shifts than by McCloskey's wholesale retreat to rhetorical analysis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Epistemological standards have already influenced the conversation of economists
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The standards of predictive success that raise doubts about economics are standards many economists already accept
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The only way to escape doubts raised by those standards is to surrender the standards that gave rise to them
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Abandoning standards wholesale conflates the failure of a specific standard with...Economics' predictive failures are better addressed by Lakatosian progressive pr...Epistemological standards have already influenced the conversation of economistsEpistemological standards in science are not merely conventional—Lakatos's metho...
    +4 moreShow less
    McCloskey's rhetorical turn cannot itself be evaluated without some meta-level e...Popper's fallibilism shows that standards can be revised without being abandoned...The only way to escape doubts raised by those standards is to surrender the stan...The standards of predictive success that raise doubts about economics are standa...

    Similar

    Royce's position cannot be restricted to a purely epistemological one80%Extremely demanding epistemic norms are sometimes inappropriate even i...79%Mīmāṃsā's opponents do not grant that the Vedas count as epistemically...79%Acknowledging variation in certain epistemic norms does not entail aba...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: economics
    View source passageHide passage
    McCloskey’s studies of the rhetoric of economics have been valuable and influential (1985, esp. ch. 5–7, McCloskey and Ziliak 2003, Ziliak and McCloskey 2008), but a great deal of her work during the 1980s and 1990s consists of philosophical critiques of economic methodology rather than studies of the rhetoric of economics. Her philosophical critiques are problematic, because the position sketched in the previous paragraph is hard to defend and potentially self-defeating. It is hard to defend, b
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit