The analysis presented in this book concludes with a claim that economics should be a humble science which does not pretend to explain by formulating all-encompassing and universal laws of nature. The very existence of such laws is quite problematic if simply not possible. It is better to have economics with more metaphysically rich concepts as the ones of tendencies and capacities. Such concepts should be at the centre of the new philosophy of economics.


  1. Hardt, Ł. (2016). The recent critique of theoretical economics: A methodologically informed investigation. Journal of Economic Issues, 50(1), 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Kołakowski, L. (2001). Metaphysical horror. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics (1st ed.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. McCloskey, D. (2006). Humility and truth. Anglican Theological Review, 88, 181–196.Google Scholar
  5. Merton, T. (1956). Thoughts in solitude. New York: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy.Google Scholar
  6. Psillos S. (2008). Cartwright’s realist toil: From entities to capacities. In L. Bovens, C. Hoefer, & S. Hartmann (Eds.), Nancy Cartwright’s philosophy of science (pp. 167–195). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Rodrik, D. (2015). Economics rules: The rights and wrongs of the dismal science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economic SciencesUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations