000			01745nam a2200193Ia 4500
999			_c681 _d681
005			20220413203542.0
008			200202s9999 xx 000 0 und d
020			_a876261527
082			_a330 SCH
100			_aSchoeffler, Sidney.
245		0	_aFailures of economics : diagnostic study
260			_aCambridge
260			_bHarvard University Press
260			_c1955
300			_a254 p.
520			_aA methodologist's lot is not a happy one. He is obliged by the requirements of his calling to carp, to criticize, to find fault, to disparage, and to throw cold water and such activi ties do not often make for idyllic professional relationships with the other people concerned. It is often felt, and with consider able justification, that criticism is cheap and easy, that it is much more worth while to "lend a hand" in the ever continuing attempt to do better, and that any really competent man would want to be on the academic firing-line rather than spend his time and effort in "superintending" from the sidelines. The un happy lot of the methodologist derives, therefore, from the circumstance that he often antagonizes the very people whom he respects and admires the most; and that he often wins the prov of least some people for whose approval he does not care. And this somewhat melancholy situation is even aggra vated by the fact that the methodologist will usually "pick" on the most creative and the most productive scholars in his field - since their work is the most important, it is also the most "worthy" of methodological analysis. There is a distinct ele ment of intellectual patricide in methodological work, and this aspect of it does not help to win it social approval.
650			_aEconomics
942			_cB _2ddc