4.3 – An Introduction to Epistemology
Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
- Compare and contrast how approaching economics from different ontological positions affects heterodox and orthodox perspectives
- Describe how ontology informs the selection of methodology for scientific study
- Define Positivist paradigm and discuss its influence on orthodox economics
- Describe examples of orthodox and heterodox methodologies
In the previous section, we described three different ontological foundations: determinist, aggregation/reductionist, and reflexive. The next step is to establish how a commitment to one of those three ontological foundations influences how we develop scientific knowledge from each of these ontologies. Returning to our code metaphor, we can think of our ontology as a language we select to write our code and develop scientific programming. Some computer languages are better suited for the development of software that runs video games, while other languages are best applied in web design or budgeting software. A similar situation exists for our ontological foundation. As we examine the related epistemologies, we question the ontological grounding and thus develop new methodologies for addressing our scientific inquiries. This is an important exercise to undertake. Revisiting and assessing our foundation protects us from spending too much time trying to fix bugs in a program that can never really be resolved without changing the language we are operating from. Or as Albert Einstein once argued with explicit reference to the concepts of time and space: “It is necessary over and over again to engage in the critique of fundamental concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by them”.
One such challenge to fundamentals arose during the Enlightenment. Challenging the knowledge claims being made by the church to sustain the social structure of the feudal era, Francis Bacon, and others began the process of developing science as an alternative method for knowledge creation. Under the determinist ontological paradigm, knowledge was derived and shared via the church and the priests who interpreted the word of God for the people. One can imagine this mode of understanding the world as being limited. Without a defined epistemology, myth, legend, and superstition dominate narratives about how the world works. Consequently, years and at times centuries have been defined by ideas like the world is flat, diseases are caused by black bile in our blood, and women who questioned conventions about gender roles or other social norms were vilified as evil and witches. Such a world is not one open to critical thinking, experimentation, or capable of much more than the smallest increments of social change.
This all, however, did begin to change. Global trade, the discovery of bacteria, and new notions of freedom and individuality all challenged feudalism’s repressive ontological order and its conventions. Such c