Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-13T21:15:07.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Playing the Economics Trump Card in the Philosophy of Science: Why It Did Not Work for Michael Polanyi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Philip Mirowski
Philip Mirowski*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
*
†Department of Economics and Program in the History and Philosophy of Science, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The failure of the attempt by Michael Polanyi to capture the social organization of science by comparing it to the operation of a market bears salutary lessons for modern philosophers of science in their rush to appropriate market models and metaphors. In this case, an initially plausible invisible hand argument ended up as crude propaganda for the uniquely privileged social support of science.

Type
Symposium: The Use of Economic Concepts in Contemporary Philosophy of Science
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 64 , Issue S4: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers Dec., 1997 , 1997 , pp. S127 - S138
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Caldwell, B. (1991), “Clarifying Popper”, Journal of Economic Literature 39: 1–33.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. (1972), Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: Gateway.Google Scholar
Holton, G. (1995), “Michael Polanyi and the History of Science”, in Gavroglu, K., Stachel, J., and Wartofsky, M. (eds.), Physics, Philosophy and the Scientific Community. Boston: Kluwer, pp. 205–223. Kitcher, P. (1993), The Advancement of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1963), “The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research”, in Crombie, A. (ed.), Scientific Change. London: Heinemann, pp. 347–369.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McGucken, W. (1984), Scientists, Society and State. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Mirowski, P. (1989), More Heat than Light. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. (unpublished), Michael Polanyi Papers [MPP]. Regenstein Library, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. ([1940] 1975), The Contempt of Freedom. New York: Arno.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1946), Science, Faith and Society. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1958), Personal Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1959). The Study of Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1961), “Science: Academic and Industrial”, Journal of the Institute of Metals 89: 401–406.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1969), “The Republic of Science”, in Knowing and Being. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1974), Scientific Thought and Social Reality. Psychological Issues Monograph no. 32, Schwartz, F. (ed.). New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. and Prosch, H. (1975), Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Prosch, H. (1986), Michael Polanyi: A Critical Exposition. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar