Francesco Boldizzoni

In this comment on Boldizzoni (2013), I outline that his argumentation is problematic and his historical point unclear. He claims that a historical perspective exposes the ‘pseudo’-dimension in science and history. From the case of Chili, he concludes that Chicago-economics is a pseudo-science. This accusation backfires when his own argument is problematic from a scientific and historical perspective. However, I can broadly agree with what is written about the history of economics as a discipline. I am sympathetic towards Boldizzoni’s observation about the relevance of history. I agree that we should go beyond the assumption of rational decision making, and propose a value-based approach to economics, where behaviour is seen as the realization of values, of which some values have a history. Hence, our understanding of history play a large role in understanding everyday behaviour. I argue that people need history as a source for meaningful life and action

Argument (complex analysis · Argumentation theory · Dimension (graph theory · Economics · Epistemology · Inference · Perspective (graphical · Political science · Positive economics · Relevance (law · Sociology · Value (mathematics · Computer Science · Economic Theory and Institutions · Law · Mathematics · Philosophy