Expanding on recent philosophical contributions to the conceptual and normative framework of scientific imperialism, I examine whether the economics approach to social epistemology can be considered a case of economics imperialism and determine whether economics’ explanatory expansionism appropriately contributes to this philosophical subfield or not. I argue first that the economics approach to social epistemology counts as a case of economics imperialism under a broad conception of the term, and second that we have good reasons to doubt the appropriateness of the incursion of economics into social epistemology, insofar as economics’ attempt at explanatory unification fails to express significant human interests.
AndersonE.2004. “Uses of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce.” Hypatia19:1-24.
2.
BartleyW. W.1990. Unfathomed Knowledge, Unmeasured Wealth: On Universities and the World of Nations. La Salle: Open Court.
3.
BeckerG.1976. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BicchieriC.1988. “Methodological Rules as Conventions.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences18:477-95.
5.
BlaisM.1987. “Epistemic Tit for Tat.” The Journal of Philosophy84:363-75.
6.
BrockW. A.DurlaufS. N.1999. “A Formal Model of Theory Choice in Science.” Economic Theory14:113-30.
7.
ClarkeS.Walsh.A.2009. “Scientific Imperialism and the Proper Relations between the Sciences.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science23:195-207.
8.
ClarkeS.Walsh.A.2013. “Imperialism, Progress, Developmental Teleology, and Interdisciplinary Unification.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science27:341-51.
9.
CorlettA.2013. “The Foundations of Social Epistemology.” Theoria56:5-17.
10.
CoxJ. C.GoldmanA. I.1994. “Accuracy in Journalism: An Economic Approach.” In Socializing Epistemology, edited by SchmittF. F., 189-216. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
11.
DavisJ.1997. “The Fox and the Henhouses: The Economics of Scientific Knowledge.” History of Political Economy29:741-46.
12.
De LangheR.2010. “The Division of Labor in Science: The Tradeoff between Specialization and Diversity.” Journal of Economic Methodology17:37-51.
13.
DouglasH.2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
14.
DupréJ.1995. “Against Scientific Imperialism.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association2:374-81.
15.
DupréJ.2001. Human Nature and the Limits of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
FehrC.2011. “What Is in It for Me? The Benefits of Diversity in Scientific Communities.” In Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, edited by GrasswickH. E., 133-55. Dordrecht: Springer.
17.
FineB.2002. “‘Economic Imperialism’: A View from the Periphery.” Review of Radical Political Economics34:187-201.
18.
FullerS.1988. Social Epistemology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
19.
FullerS.2007. The Knowledge Book: Key Concepts in Philosophy, Science, and Culture. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
20.
GoldbergS.2013. “‘Analytic Social Epistemology’ and the Epistemic Significance of Other Minds.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective2:26-48.
21.
GoldmanA.1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
22.
GoldmanA.2002. “Reply to Commentators.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research64:215-27.
HowardD.2009. “Better Red than Dead: Putting an End to the Social Irrelevance of Postwar Philosophy of Science.” Science & Education18:199-220.
30.
HullD.1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
IntemannK.2011. “Diversity and Dissent in Science: Does Democracy Always Serve Feminist Aims?” In Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, edited by GrasswickH. E., 111-32. Dordrecht: Springer.
32.
KellertS.LonginoH.WatersK.2006. “Introduction: The Pluralist Stance.” In Scientific Pluralism, edited by KellertS. H.LonginoH.WatersK., vii-xxix. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
33.
KiddI. J.2013. “Historical Contingency and the Impact of Scientific Imperialism.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science27:315-24.
34.
KitcherP.1990. “The Division of Cognitive Labor.” The Journal of Philosophy87:5-22.
35.
KitcherP.1993. The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
KitcherP.1995. “Author’s Response.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research55:653-73.
37.
KouranyJ. A.2003. “A Philosophy of Science for the Twenty-First Century.” Philosophy of Science70:1-14.
38.
KouranyJ. A.2010. Philosophy of Science after Feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
KuhnT. S.1977. The Essential Tension: The Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
KuorikoskiJ.LehtinenA..2010. “Economics Imperialism and Solution Concepts in Political Science.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences40:347-74.
41.
KuschM.2011. “Social Epistemology.” In The Routledge Companion to Epistemology, edited by BerneckerS.PritchardD., 873-84. New York: Routledge.
42.
LatourB.WoolgarS..1979. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
43.
LazearE.2000. “Economic Imperialism.” Quarterly Journal of Economics115:99-146.
44.
LeviI.1967. Gambling with Truth. New York: Knopf.
45.
LonginoH.1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
46.
LonginoH.1995. “Gender, Politics, and the Theoretical Virtues.” Synthese104:383-97.
47.
LonginoH.2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
48.
LuetgeC.2004. “Economics in Philosophy of Science: A Dismal Contribution?”Synthese140:279-305.
49.
MäkiU.2002. “Explanatory Ecumenism and Economics Imperialism.” Economics and Philosophy18:235-57.
50.
MäkiU.2005. “Economic Epistemology: Hopes and Horrors.” Episteme1:211-22.
51.
MäkiU.2009. “Economics Imperialism: Concepts and Constraints.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences39:351-80.
52.
MäkiU.2013. “Scientific Imperialism: Difficulties in Definition, Identification, and Assessment.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science27:325-39.
53.
MäkiU.Marchionni.C.2011. “Is Geographical Economics Imperializing Economic Geography?”Journal of Economic Geography11:645-65.
54.
Mayo-WilsonC.ZollmanK.DanksD..2013. “Wisdom of Crowds vs. Groupthink: Learning in Groups and in Isolation.” International Journal of Game Theory42:695-723.
55.
McMullinE.1982. “Values in Science.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association2:3-28.
56.
MillerB.Forthcoming. “Social Epistemology.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
57.
MirowskiP.1995. “Philip Kitcher’s Advancement of Science: A Review Article.” Review of Political Economy7 (2): 227-41.
58.
NeurathO.1913. “The Lost Wanderers of Descartes.” In Philosophical Papers, 1913-1946, edited by CohenR. S.NeurathM.FawcettC. R., 1-12. Dordrecht: D. Riedel, 1983.
59.
Nik-KhahE.van HornR.2012. “Inland Empire: Economics Imperialism as an Imperative of Chicago Neoliberalism.” Journal of Economic Methodology19 (3):259-82.
PeirceC. S.1879. “A Note on the Theory of the Economy of Research.” United States Coast Survey for the Fiscal Year Ending June 1876, Washington, DC. In Science Bought and Sold, edited by MirowskiP.SentE. M., 183-90. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
62.
PolanyiM.1962. “The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory.” Minerva1:54-73.
63.
RadnitzkyG.Bernholz.P.1987. Economic Imperialism: The Economic Approach Applied Outside the Field of Economics. New York: Paragon House.
64.
RescherN.1978. Scientific Progress: A Philosophical Essay on the Economics of Research in Natural Science. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburgh Press.
65.
RescherN.1989. Cognitive Economy: The Economic Dimension of the Theory of Knowledge. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburgh Press.
66.
RoordaJ.1997. “Kitcher on Theory Choice.” Erkenntnis46:215-39.
67.
RouseJ.1987. Knowledge and Power: Toward a Political Philosophy of Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
68.
SentE.1997. “An Economist’s Glance at Goldman’s Economics.” Philosophy of Science64:S139-48.
SolomonM.2001. Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
71.
StiglerG.1984. “Economics—The Imperial Science?”Scandinavian Journal of Economics86:301-13.
72.
StrevensM.2003. “The Role of the Priority Rule in Science.” The Journal of Philosophy100:55-79.
73.
TuanaN.2004. “Coming to Understand: Orgasm and the Epistemology of Ignorance.” Hypatia19:194-232.
74.
WrayB.2000. “Invisible Hands and the Success of Science.” Philosophy of Science67:163-75.
75.
YlikoskiP.1995. “The Invisible Hand and Science.” Science Studies8:32-43.
76.
Zamora BonillaJ.2012. “The Economics of Scientific Knowledge.” In Handbook of the Philosophy of Science. Volume 13: Philosophy of Economics, edited by MäkiU., 823-62.
77.
Zamora BonillaJ.2014. “The Nature of Co-authorship: A Note on Recognition Sharing and Scientific Argumentation.” Synthese191:97-108.
78.
ZollmanK.2009. “The Epistemic Benefit of Transient Diversity.” Erkenntnis72:17-35.
