The present essay addresses the epistemic difficulties involved in achieving consensus with respect to the Hayek-Keynes debate. In particular, it is argued that the debate cannot be settled on the basis of the observable evidence; or, more precisely, that the empirical implications of the theories of Hayek and Keynes are such that, regardless of what is observed, both of the theories can be interpreted as true, or at least, not falsified. Regardless of the evidence, both Hayek and Keynes can be interpreted as right.
Download count: 0
- Partial requirement for: Ph. D., Arizona State University, 2012Note typethesis
- Includes bibliographical references (p. 183-186)Note typebibliography
- Field of study: Philosophy