论文部分内容阅读
文章对19世纪中后期历史学派和奥地利学派之间展开的一场关于经济学方法论范式的论战进行了评析,提出论战表面上看是两派围绕历史归纳法与理性演绎法在经济学研究中的地位和作用有不同的认知而产生的争论,本质上则是主张先验理性主义还是坚持经验主义认识论的分歧:在门格尔的体系中存在着先验的经济学真理,在施穆勒的体系中否认一切先验绝对真理的存在,只承认存在着相对的、暂时的经济学真理。就方法论来说,如何将理性演绎和历史归纳两种研究范式有机完美结合,仍然是现代经济学需要探讨解决的问题。
The essay comments on a controversy over the paradigm of economics from the historical school and the Austrian school in the mid-late 19th century. It argues that in the view of debate, the two schools centered on the historical induction and the rational deduction in economic studies Status and role of different cognitions arising from controversy, in essence, is to advocate transcendental empiricism or persist in epistemological disagreement: There is a transcendental economic truth in Menger’s system, in Schmoller Denies the existence of all a priori absolute truths and admits the existence of relative and temporary economic truths. As far as methodology is concerned, how to combine the two kinds of research paradigms of rational deduction and historical induction in an organic and perfect manner is still a problem to be solved in modern economics.