The introductory section presents the goal of this book project as well as its content. It clearly states that economics should be better comprehended as a science which does not explain by subsuming phenomena under universal laws of nature but rather by building models of these phenomena, by referring to causes, or even by investigating what is in the nature of given factors, events, or circumstances to produce. However, that does not mean the author rejects the natural law tradition in economics. This book helps also in better understanding the contemporary critique of economics. Last but not least, it should help practising economists in comprehending the kind and character of knowledge they produce.


  1. Arrow, K., & Debreu, G. (1954). Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econometrica, 22(3), 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aspromourgos, T. (2012). The machine in Adam Smith’s economic and wider thought. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 34(4), 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaug, M. (1992). The methodology of economics: Or, how economists explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bunge, M. (1967). Scientific realism. The search for systems (Vol. 1). New York/Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cartwright, N. (1994). Fundamentalism vs. the patchwork of laws. Proceedings of the Aristotelean Society, XCIV, 279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang, H. (2007). Inventing temperature: Measurement and scientific progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Colander, D. (2011). How economists got it wrong: A nuanced account. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 23(1–2), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics. In M. Friedman (Ed.), Essays in positive economics (pp. 3–43). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hardt, Ł. (2016). The recent critique of theoretical economics: A methodologically informed investigation. Journal of Economic Issues, 50(1), 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2), 135–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoover, K. D. (2001). Causality in macroeconomics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jaki, S. L. (1966). The relevance of physics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kincaid, H., & Ross, D. (Eds.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of philosophy of economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kołakowski, L. (2001). Metaphysical horror. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lange, M. (2013). What makes a scientific explanation distinctively mathematical? British Journal for the Philosophy of Sciences, 64(3), 485–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics (8th ed.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Mill, J. S. (1843). A system of logic. Ratiocinative and inductive. London: John W. Parker.Google Scholar
  20. Reiss, J. (2012). The explanation paradox. Journal of Economic Methodology, 19(1), 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reiss, J. (2013). Philosophy of economics. A contemporary introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Rizvi, S. A. T. (2006). The Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu results after thirty years. History of Political Economy, 38(5), 228–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Trigg, R. (1993). Rationality and science: Can science explain everything? Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Varian, H. R. (1980). A model of sales. The American Economic Review, 70(4), 651–659.Google Scholar
  25. Whitehead, A. (1925). Science and the modern world. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economic SciencesUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations