Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Discussion on the criterion of veritas in the social sciences
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2026-1-23-41
Abstract
The paper traces the long history of debates on the reliability of knowledge in the social sciences. The discussion was most intense among philosophers (materialists, various strands of positivism, and proponents of linguistic philosophy), yet its outcomes also shaped the work of economists, sociologists, and political scientists. Logical positivism, which dominated in the 1920s and 1930s, conflicted with the agenda of the “econometric revolution”. Popper’s critique of induction as a basis for reliable knowledge resonates with Friedman’s instrumentalism and his acceptance of unrealistic assumptions. The ideas of Kuhn, Lakatos, and Feyerabend were reflected in the growing fragmentation of economics and the coexistence of multiple, often competing research programmes. Because economists cannot directly “relive” political and economic history, attention increasingly shifted to rhetoric, as McCloskey argued. Earlier, Wittgenstein had stressed the relative autonomy of language, while Austin and Searle developed speech act theory. Performativity—understood as a constitutive element of utterances—has become central to contemporary analyses of the attention economy. The tensions between scholastic traditions and emerging discursive shifts accompanying new research programmes can be usefully described through Fuller’s concept of post-truth. As a result, many contemporary economists pay little attention to methodological debates, relying on “econometric faith” and constructing “plausible worlds”.
About the Author
Petr A. Orekhovsky
Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Moscow
References
1. Blaug M. (1994). Economic theory in retrospect. Moscow: Delo. (In Russian).]
2. Bogdanov A. A. (1910). Faith and science. In: Bogdanov A. A. The fall of the great fetishism (Modern crisis of ideology). Moscow: Dorovatovsky & Charushnikov Publ., pp. 144—223. (In Russian).]
3. Baudrillard J. (2003). For a critique of the political economy of the sign. Moscow: Biblion — Russkaya Kniga. (In Russian).]
4. Baudrillard J. (2015). Simulacra and simulation. Moscow: Postum. (In Russian).]
5. Bourdieu P. (2017). Homo academicus. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publ. (In Russian).]
6. Bourdieu P. (2019). Economic anthropology: Lectures at the College de France, 1992—1993. Moscow: Delo. (In Russian).]
7. Wittgenstein L. (2010). Philosophical investigations. Moscow: Astrel. (In Russian).]
8. Wittgenstein L. (2021). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Moscow: Akademicheskii Proekt. (In Russian).]
9. Volkov V. V., Kharkhordin O. V. (2008). Theory of practices. St. Petersburg: European University at St. Petersburg Publ. (In Russian).]
10. Gurevich A. (2014). Historical synthesis and the Annales school. Moscow; St. Petersburg: Center for Humanitarian Initiatives; Universitetskaya Kniga. (In Russian).]
11. De Frey M. (2019). History of macroeconomics: From Keynes to Lucas and beyond. Moscow: Delo. (In Russian).]
12. Dudina V. I. (2012). Epistemological reconfiguration of social knowledge: From representation to performativity. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 35—50. (In Russian).]
13. Efimov V. M. (2016). Economic science in question: Other methodology, history, and research practices. Moscow: Kurs; Infra-M. (In Russian).]
14. Siebert H. (2005). The Cobra effect: How to avoid fallacies in economic policy. Moscow: Novoe Izdatelstvo. (In Russian).]
15. Kapeliushnikov R. I. (2018). On current state of economics: Subjective semi-sociological observations. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 5, pp. 110—128. (In Russian).] https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-5-110-128
16. Kapeliushnikov R. I. (2024). Youth of econometrics: Keynesians contra Keynes. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 11, pp. 120—147. (In Russian).] https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2024-11-120-147
17. Klamer A. (2015). Strange science economics: An invitation to a conversation. Moscow; St. Petersburg: Gaidar Institute Publ.; Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya; Faculty of Liberal Arts and Sciences, SPbU. (In Russian).]
18. Crouch C. (2012). The strange non-death of neoliberalism. Moscow: Delo. (In Russian).]
19. Kubeddu R. (2008). Political philosophy of the Austrian school: K. Menger, L. von Mises, F. Hayek. Moscow; Chelyabinsk: IRISEN; Mysl; Sotsium. (In Russian).]
20. Kuhn T. (2003). The structure of scientific revolutions. Moscow: AST. (In Russian).]
21. Lakatos I. (2008). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Lakatos I. Selected works on the philosophy and methodology of science. Moscow: Akademicheskii Proekt; Triksta, pp. 281—463. (In Russian).]
22. Latour B. (2014). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Moscow: HSE Publ. (In Russian).]
23. Latour B. (2024). Politics of nature: How to bring sciences into democracy. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press. (In Russian).]
24. Levin M. I., Pokatovich E. V. (2006). The economy of illegal sex: Red light on a blue background. Moscow: INDEM Foundation. (In Russian).]
25. Lenin V. I. (1968). Materialism and empiriocriticism. In: Lenin V. I. Complete works. 5th ed., Vol. 18. Moscow: Politicheskaya Literatura, pp. 7—384. (In Russian).]
26. Leontiev V. (1990). Economic essays: Theories, theorizing, facts, and policies. Moscow: Politizdat. (In Russian).]
27. McCloskey D. (2015). The rhetoric of economics. Moscow; St. Petersburg: Gaidar Institute Publ.; Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya; Faculty of Liberal Arts and Sciences, SPbU. (In Russian).]
28. Marx K. (1955). Theses on Feuerbach. In: Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed., Vol. 3. Moscow: Gospolitizdat, pp. 1—4. (In Russian).]
29. Merton R. (2006). The self-fulfilling prophecy. In: Merton R. (2006). Social theory and social structure. Moscow: AST; Khranitiel, pp. 605—626. (In Russian).]
30. Mises L. von (2008). Human action: A treatise on economics. Chelyabinsk: Sotsium. (In Russian).]
31. Myrdal G. (1958). An international economy: Problems and prospects. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Inostrannoy Literatury. (In Russian).]
32. Austin J. (1999). Selected works. Moscow: Ideya-Press; Dom Intellektualnoi Knigi. (In Russian).]
33. Popper K. (1992). The open society and its enemies. In 2 vols. Moscow: Feniks. (In Russian).] Поппер К. (2005). Логика научного исследования. М.: Республика. [Popper K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery. Moscow: Respublika. (In Russian).]
34. Rodrik D. (2016). Economics rules: The rights and wrongs of the dismal science. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publ. (In Russian).]
35. Rubinstein A. (2008). Dilemmas of an economic theorist. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 11, pp. 62—80. (In Russian).] https://doi.org/10.32609/00428736-2008-11-62-80
36. Sugden R. (2012). Credible worlds: The status of theoretical models in economics. In: D. Hausman (ed.). Philosophy of economics. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publ., pp. 475—518. (In Russian).]
37. Seligman B. (1968). Main currents in modem economics. Moscow: Progress. (In Russian).]
38. Searle J. (1986a). What is a speech act? In: New in foreign linguistics. Iss. 17: Theory of speech acts. Moscow: Progress, pp. 151—169. (In Russian).]
39. Searle J. (1986b). A classification of illocutionary acts. In: New in foreign linguistics. Iss. 17: Theory of speech acts. Moscow: Progress, pp. 170—194. (In Russian).]
40. Tambovtsev V. L. (2015). The myth of the “culture code” in economic research. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 12, pp. 85—106. (In Russian).] https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2015-12-85-106
41. Tambovtsev V. L. (2018). What economic methodology can be of interest to economists? In: A. P. Zaostrovtsev (ed.). Economic theory: Triumph or crisis? St. Petersburg: Leontief Centre, pp. 104—116. (In Russian).]
42. Feyerabend P. (2007). Against method: Outline of an anarchist theory of knowledge. Moscow: AST; Khranitiel. (In Russian).]
43. Feyerabend P. (2021). Killing time: The autobiography of Paul Feyerabend. Moscow: Rosebud Publ. (In Russian).]
44. Franck G. (2020). Beyond money and information: On the economy of attention. Digital Economy, No. 2, pp. 45—51. (In Russian).] https://doi.org/10.34706/DE-2020-02-04
45. Friedman M. (2012). The methodology of positive economics. In: D. Hausman (ed.). Philosophy of economics. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publ., pp. 177—216. (In Russian).]
46. Fuller S. (2021). Post-truth: Knowledge as a power game. Moscow: HSE Publ. (In Russian).]
47. Harman G. (2019). Speculative realism: An introduction. Moscow: RIPOL Klassik. (In Russian).]
48. Chamberlin E. (1996). The theory of monopolistic competition: A re-orientation of the theory of value. Moscow: Ekonomika. (In Russian).]
49. Yurchak A. (2014). It was forever, until it ended: The last Soviet generation. Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie. (In Russian).]
50. Fogel R., Engerman S. (1974). Time on the cross: The economics of American negro slavery. In 2 vols. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
51. Shiller R. J. (2019). Narrative economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Orekhovsky P.A. Discussion on the criterion of veritas in the social sciences. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2026;(1):23-41. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2026-1-23-41
Views:
24
JATS XML
Email this article 
