A Hard Battle to Fight

Natural Theology and the Dismal Science, 1820-50

Bibliographic Data

ID4296867
AuthorsH Maas (0000-0002-5094-0477, Max Planck Society, corresponding author)
Year2008
Volume40
Issue5
Pages143-167
Publication date2008-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueHistory of Political Economy (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0018-2702 • E-ISSN: 1527-1919
PublisherDuke University Press (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1215/00182702-2007-064
OpenAlexW2072220514
LanguageEN
Citations received5
References cited18

William Whewell's and Richard Jones's criticism of Jeremy Bentham's and David Ricardo's "dismal" views on the relation of theory and evidence in political economy was motivated by the former's views on the structuring role of natural theology for questions of method and evidence in the sciences, including political economy. In comparison, natural theology was for Richard Whately as structuring on these issues as it was for the Cambridge men. Whately's view on natural theology, however, conformed with the Ricardian predilection for theory over facts. The differences between the Cambridge men and Whately became manifest after (or better: during) the publication of Jones's book on rent in 1831 and led to a somewhat acerbic exchange of views on the role of definitions in science and the use of history for establishing scientific evidence. As far as political economy was concerned, Whately's stance carried the day in Victorian England

Ancient history · Battle · Criticism · Economic history · Epistemology · Natural (archaeology · Natural theology · Political science · Politics · Relation (database · Sociology · Structuring · Historical Economic and Social Studies · History · Law · Philosophy · Political Economy and Marxism · Political Theory and Influence

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub