Abstract
Ernest Nagel once remarked that ‘[t]he only point that can be affirmed with confidence is that a model for a theory is not the theory itself’ (Nagel 1961, p. 116). And R.B. Braithwaite warned against the danger that: ‘The theory will be identified with a model for it …’ (Braithwaite 1953, p. 90). It will be argued here that Nagel, Braithwaite and the school of which they were representative were right to insist on a model/theory distinction, but wrong as to the nature of that distinction and the reasons for adopting it. The now defunct school referred to was christened by Hilary Putnam the ‘Received View’ (Putnam 1962). The Received View in the philosophy of science was (roughly) the logical positivist interpretation of science. It involved a model/theory distinction in an essential way. Logical positivist ideas penetrated economic theory and lived on there long after the fall of the Received View. The latter, after more than 30 years of dominance, came under such severe attacks that by the end of the 1960s, as Frederick Suppe later remarked, these attacks ‘had been so successful that most philosophers of science had repudiated the Received View’ (Suppe 1977, p. 618).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsBibliography
Braithwaite, R.B. 1953. Scientific Explanations: A study of the function of theory, probability and law in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Debreu, G. 1959. Theory of value: An axiomatic analysis of economic equilibrium, Cowles Foundation monograph No. 17. New York: Wiley.
Duménil, G., and D. Lévy. 1984. Une restauration de l’analyse classique de la dynamique concurrentielle. In La Gravitation, Systèmes de Prix de Production, vol. 2, 3, ed. C. Bidard and R.C.P. Cahiers de la. Nanterre: University of Paris.
Hahn, F.H. 1978. On non-Walrasian equilibria. Revue of Economic Studies 45(1): 1–17.
Hahn, F.H. 1982. The neo-Ricardians. Cambridge Journal of Economics 6(4): 353–374.
Hempel, C.G. 1977. Formulation and formalization of scientific theories, a summary abstract. In Suppe (1977).
Nagel, E. 1961. Structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Pasinetti, L.L. 1981. Structural change and economic growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, H. 1962. What theories are not. In Logic, methodology and philosophy of science: Proceedings of the 1960 international congress, ed. E. Nagel, P. Suppes, and A. Tarski. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Suppe, F. (ed.). 1977. The structure of scientific theories, 2nd ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
About this entry
Cite this entry
Walsh, V. (2018). Models and Theory. In: The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_923
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_923
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-95188-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-95189-5
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences