本篇论文诉求之对象，就如同Eichner编辑”Why Economics is not yet a Science”所企求者：“…that the essays in this collection are directed primarily at those outside economics – even though it is hoped that minds within the profession, especially younger ones, are still open to persuasion. One audience is the lay public. It is this group which suffers the most from economics in its present form, not just in terms of the resources consumed in supporting those who hold teaching and research positions in the field but also in terms of the damage done by there not being a better understanding of how the economy works. The even more important audience, however, is the broader community of scientists. It is this group which most directly threatened when ideas falsely masquerade as science, and it is this group which must respond accordingly.” (Eichner, 1983a, pp. xiii-xiv；黑体字为作者所加，以后之引注亦同。)

一、什么是学术评鉴？为什么要学术评鉴？

在进入正题之前，对什么是学术评鉴，以及为什么作学术评鉴，先予厘清。由于学术评鉴目的的「神圣性」（sacred），要提出这样的问题，必需要有毫不汗颜（shameless）的勇气。不过，也因为其目的的「神圣性」，对其手段的「合适性」，往往讳莫如深。因此，更应该坚持科学的精神，在「不疑之处有疑」；以「纯真」的态度，「打破沙锅问到底」。

如果根据「不说也知道」的常识性定义：学术评鉴就是运用一套「标准化的科学标准」去评比学术工作者（以下简称学者）的研究成果[2]；学术评鉴只是手段，其目的系透过学者间的「比较」，产生「相互竞争」，并以「红萝卜和棍子」为诱因，「驱使」学者，不敢懈怠，奋力从事研究工作，以提升学者之人力资源的生产「效率」，促进学术发展。

说穿了，这是根据所谓「市场经济逻辑」，是新古典经济主义的「基本教义」；经由方法论或科学哲学的「检验」，新古典经济理论系一种市场经济主义，系一种「唯市场经济」的意识形态；所以，正如新古典经济理论的主要代言人之一Robbins(1981, p.1) 所言，其呼应F. Hayek之建议，主张应将经济学还原为枢机主教（Archbishop）Whately所称的「交易学」（the Science of Catallactics or the Science of Exchange），或如Boulding (1969, p.4)之定义：

“Economics specializes in the study of that part of the total social system which is organized through exchange and which deals with exchangeable. This to my mind is a better definition of economics than those which define it as relating to scarcity or allocation, …”

一方面，其将学术商品化（commoditization）；即学术成果系市场贩卖之商品[3]，所以有其同构型。另方面，是将学者劳动市场化；即学者虽不是「按时计酬」，却是「按件计酬」。故只要学术「市场」能够形成，则其目标自然「心想事成」：

”The paradigm of orthodox econmics takes its lead from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Orhtodox economists recognize that, …. It is nonethemess based on a great truth, the self-regulating nature of the market, which marks the book as the initial achievement in economics.” （Canterbery and Burkhardt, 1983, p. 22）

“Neoclassical economics, the reigning school, marries the assumptions of the classical invisible hand – the principle of a self-regulating economy - …” (Kuttner, 1985, p. 74)

这样的诠释，应该能深获经济学者的「心」，只不过，这只是经济学ABC的运用，完全难登深奥的学术殿堂。至对「非」经济学者而言，则犹如杜鹃窝之语言，难以理解。因此，对杜鹃窝外99.99 ％的「非」经济学者而言，有必要了解杜鹃窝里的世界，到底长得什么样。

二、由经济学门是否已是一门「科学」谈起

“Why Economics is not yet an Evolutionary Science” 这是Thorstein Veblen在十九世纪末（1898）所提出的疑问（Eichner, 1983c, p. 205），但八十余年后，当经济学门的学术发展已经「定于一尊」，有「主流」（mainstream）学派之形成，惟其「科学」的「地位」（status），却亦被动摇，而其主流学派亦受到来自「异端」的挑战，仿佛回到宗教改革前夕；只是讽刺的是，这次代表 “orthodoxy” 的一方，却是标榜理性主义的新古典经济学派：

“Neoclassical economic analysis grows out of the Enlightenment mentality, which substituted a scientific natural order for a metaphysical one.”(Kuttner, 1985, p. 76)

（一）橘逾淮为枳：经济学与逻辑实证论（logical positivism）[4]

约在二十世纪初期，逻辑实证论的兴起[5]，先后将哲学、伦理学、宗教排除于「科学」之列；社会学、人类学、以及政治经济学亦感受到压力（Canterbery and Burkhardt, 1983, p. 17）。逻辑实证论主要系设定判定科学或非科学的「一般性」准则，政治经济学为了赢得科学的荣显，以便在由自然科学掌舵的学术圈，占有一席之地，乃依循逻辑实证论的科学准则发展；除了强调客观、理性、价值中立、精准、与逻辑的严谨之外，同时，政治经济学（political economy）亦改称为经济学（economics）。为了迎合前述之要求，在理论的建构，其大量运用数理模型，并自诩为「纯理论」（pure theory）。另在实证的操作方面，则着眼于数量之相关性的检验，以精准的系数逃避具解释能力之因果律的探究。

“The development of economics in the twentieth century has also been influenced by the increased use of quantitative methods. While contributors to The Trend（Rexford G. Tugwell (ed.), The Trend of Economics, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1924） stressed the need for a more empirical economics, they also warned readers to avoid becoming blind to economic reality through the relentless pursuit of rigor. Unfortunately, conventional economics – which has long sought to model itself after the ‘hard’ sciences – found the attraction to mathematical techniques and modes of expression irresistible. In a discipline where formalism is not a secondary feature but often “a central programmatic aim,” we should not be surprised to find neoclassicialism in a dominant position – for there is no question that this approach permits a high degree of mathematization. (Whalen, 1996, p.4)

“I conclude this section by quoting from John Maynard Keynes (1036, p. 298): “Too large a proportion of recent ‘mathematical’ economics are merely concoctions as imprecise as the initial assumptions they rest on, which allow the author to lose sight of the complexities and interdependencies of the real world in a maze of pretentious and unhelpful symbols.” (Blatt, 1983, p. 173)

惟这种发展情势，的确不仅让经济学得以赢得「科学」的头衔，似乎能够与自然科学并驾齐驱，更在社会科学的领域，享有「女皇」的封号，造就经济学的帝国版图。但是，正如Swaney and Premus (1983, p. 42)所指出者：

“Apparently, formalism’s general failure in economics (as science, but not as a storyteller) is the result of attempts to apply logical positivism where it cannot work . While social and natural sciences differ in important respects, and while these differences severely limit the appropriateness of natural science methodology for the social science, … We argue that logical positivism’s failure is also due to economists’ failure to actually follow the methodology of logical positivism where it is appropriate.”

具体而言，姑且不论在科学哲学方面，逻辑实证论已经受到挑战；惟其毕竟是针对自然科学的理论建构，并不适用于与自然科学迥然不同的社会科学，故东施效颦的结果，既使以逻辑实证论的准则观之，经济学不仅未能更具「科学相」，反而倒退之，充其量只能视为Thomas S. Kuhn 所称的一种「典范」（paradigm）：

”Is economics a science? Economists do not in practice follow their own normative commandments for science and thus economics is not a science in terms of their own criteria. However, economics has a paradigm and devout practitioners, so that economics is a science in a Kuhnian sense of having a single overarching paradigm to which most practitioners in the field subscribe.”(Canterbery and Burkhardt, 1983, p. 35).

“In fact, economists seem to pay lip service to the positivist ideals, going off and doing their own thing irrespective whatever normative criteria philosophers of science – or in deed other kinds of scientists – have found to be sound, or at least functional. In this respect, economics may be a science, but only in the bold-faced Kuhnian sense of there being a paradigm within which economists practice and according to which they self-referentially define their activity as science. Economics may thus be a pre-positivist “system of organized cognition” – much in the same way, perhaps, as Ptolemaic geocentrism.” （Canterbery and Burkhardt, 1983, p. 22）

综合论之，经济学固然「削足适履」，企图以严谨逻辑分析的数理模型和精准的数量实证方法[6]，建立其科学地位；但其结果，却是适得其反；只是空有科学之名，而无其实：