GÖDEL’S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREMS AND NORMATIVE SCIENCE METHODOLOGY: A SYSTEMS THEORY APPROACH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52195/pm.v19i1.779Resumen
Examino los fundamentos teóricos fundamentales del método praxeológico, aplicado al componente normativo de la economía política. Sugiero que el teorema de incompletitud de Gödel implica que el componente teórico de la praxeología descansa necesariamente en axiomas indemostrables, y doy ejemplos de las conclusiones inconsistentes cuando se aceptan ciertos
axiomas praxeológicos como verdades universales y absolutas. Luego propongo la teoría de sistemas como marco para la investigación de la veracidad de estos axiomas y sugiero métodos literarios como esenciales en su formulación. Finalmente, considero el derecho constitucional como un ejemplo de las aplicaciones prácticas de la teoría normativa económico-jurídica y la importancia de tener robustos principios de base.
Descargas
Total de descargas desde la publicación: 988
Referencias
Alhadeff-Jones, M. (2013): “Complexity, Methodology and Method: Crafting a Critical Process of Research.” Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 10(1/2), 19-44.
Bagus, P. (2011): “Morgenstern’s Forgotten Contribution: A Stab to the Heart of Modern Economics.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 70(2), 540-562.
Barbieri, F. (2013): “Complexity and the Austrians.” Filosofía de La Economía, 1(1), 47-69.
Beker, V. A. (2001): ¿Es la economía una ciencia? Una discusión de cuestiones metodológicas. Universidad de Belgrano, Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Ben-Ya’acov, U. (2019): “Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem and Universal Physical Theories.” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1391(1).
Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962): “The Calculus of Consent.” In The Collected Works of James M. Buchanan Vol. 3. Liberty Fund Inc.
Calude, C. S., & Jürgensen, H. (2005): “Is Complexity a Source of Incompleteness?” Advances in Applied Mathematics, 35(1), 1-15.
Menger, C. (1985): Investigations into the method of the social sciences with special reference to economics. New York University press.
Cerovac, I. (2018): “Epistemic Liberalism.” Prolegomena, 17(1), 81-95.
Córdoba, M. O. (2017). “Uneasiness and Scarcity: An Analytic Approach Towards Ludwig von Mises’s Praxeology.” Axiomathes, 27(5), 521-529.
Craig, W. L. (2013): “Propositional Truth - Who Needs It?” Philosophia Christi, 15(2), 355-364.
— (1997): “The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality.” Foundations, 5, 9-12.
Darwin. C. (2018): The Origin of Species (6th ed.). Global Grey ebooks.
Dauben, J. W. (1982): “Abraham Robinson and Nonstandard Analysis: History, Philosophy, and Foundations of Mathematics.” Boston Colloquim for the Philosophy of Science, 177-200.
Friedman, M. (1966): “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” In Essays in Positive Economics (pp. 3-16, 30-43). Univ. of Chicago Press.
Gleik, J. (1987): Chaos: Making A New Science. Viking Penguin Inc.
— (2011): The Information: A History, A Theory, A Flood. Pantheon Books.
Gödel, K. (1986): Collected Works Volume I. Oxford University Press.
Guerra-Pujol, F. E. (2012): “Gödel’s Loophole.” Capital University Law Review, 41.
Hawking, S. (2003): “Gödel and the End of Physics.” Public Lecture March 8th at Texas A&M University.
Hayek, F. A. (1960): The Constitution of Liberty. The University of Chicago.
— (1945): “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519-530.
— (1948): Individualism & Economic Order. University of Chicago Press.
— (2010): The Sensory Order. University of Chicago Press.
— (1967): Rules, Perception and Intelligibility. Simon and Schuster.
— (1984): The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism: Vol. I.
Hofstadter, D. R. (1999): Gödel, Escher, Bach. Basic Books inc.
Hoppe, H.-H. (1985): “In Defense of Extreme Rationalism: Thoughts on Donald McCloskey’s The Rhetoric of Economics.” The Review of Austrian Economics, 3(1), 179-214.
— (2006): The Economics and Ethics of Private Property. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
— (2007): Economic Science and the Austrian Method. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Huerta de Soto, J. (2005): Socialismo, Cálculo Económico y Función Empresarial. Unión Editorial.
— (2014): “The Theory of Dynamic Efficiency.” In The Theory of Dynamic Efficiency (pp. 1-30).
Hülsmann, J. G. (1999): “Economic Science and Neoclassicism.” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 2(4), 3-20.
— (2000): “A Realist Approach to Equilibrium Analysis.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 3(4), 3-51.
— (2003): “Facts and Counterfactuals.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 17(1), 57-102.
Kinsella, S. (2011, May 27): Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide. Mises Institute, 2-7.
Koppl, R. (2010): “Some Epistemological Implications of Economic Complexity.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 76, 859-872.
Long, R. T. (2006): “Realism and Abstraction in Economics: Aristotle and Mises versus Friedman.” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 9(3), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12113-006-1012-2
Menger, C. (1985): Investigations into the method of the social sciences with special reference to economics. New York University press.
Meseguer, C. M. (2012): La Teoría Evolutiva de las Instituciones. Unión Editorial.
— (2016): “La epistemología de la escuela austriaca de economía (la fundamental aportación de F.A. Hayek a la teoría del conocimiento).” Procesos de Mercado, 13(2), 253-303.
Mises, L. Von. (1998): Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Bettina Bien Greaves.
— (2007): Theory and History: An interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution. Yale University Press.
— (1960): “Epistemological Relativism in the Sciences of Human Action.” Volker Fund’s Symposium on Relativism.
— (1962): The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.
Murphy, R. P., & Callahan, G. (2006): “Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethic: A Critique.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 20(2), 53-64.
Murphy, R. P. (2010): Chaos Theory: Two Essays on Market Anarchy. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Nagel, E., & Newman, J. R. (2001): Gödel’s Proof. New York University press.
Paul, K. (1957): The Breakdown of nations. Routledge.
Penrose, R. (1989): The Emperor’s New Mind. Oxford University Press.
Polanyi, M. (2005): Personal Knowledge. Taylor & Francis e-Library.
— (2014): The Study of Man. Martino Publishing.
— (1969): Knowing and Being: Essays by Michael Polanyi. University of Chicago Press.
Rothbard, M. N. (1976): “Praxeology, Value Judgments, and Public Policy.” The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics. Edwun Dolan ed., Kansas City, Sheed and War.
— (1997): “Praxeology: The methodology of Austrian economics.” In The logic of action one: Method, money, and the Austrian School (pp. 58-77). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
— (1998): The Ethics of Liberty. New York University press.
Scheall, S., & Schumacher, R. (2018): “Karl Menger as son of Carl Menger.” In Center for the History of Political economy.
Siegenfeld, A. F., & Bar-Yam, Y. (2020): “An Introduction to Complex Systems Science and Its Applications.” Complexity.
Simon, H. A. (1978): “The uses of mathematics in the social sciences.” Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 20, 159-166.
Smith, B. (1990): The Question of Apriorism. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 12(1).
— (1990): “Aristotle, Menger, Mises: An essay in the metaphysics of economics.” History of Political Economy, Annual Supplement, 22, 263-288.
van den Hauwe, L. M. P. (2011): “Hayek, Gödel, and the case for methodological dualism.” Journal of Economic Methodology, 18(4), 387-407.
Wigner, E. (1960): “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences.” Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13(1).
Wolters, V. (2011): “Artificial Intelligence, Dynamic Efficiency and Economics.” Procesos de Mercado, 8(1), 337-350.
Yates, S. (2005): “What Austrian Scholars Should Know About Logic (And Why?).” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 8(3), 39-57.
Zanotti, G. J. (2004): El Método de la Economía Política. Ediciones Cooperativas.
