“In all these respects economics is important, so much so that it behooves us to be attentive to the limits of our work and, therefore, to the reasons we must be diffident and restrained in making policy recommendations. In affirming this position, ….. economists must dutifully and constantly pay attention and give explicit effect to the limitations of their tools, models, theories, paradigms, lines of reasoning, and so on.”

“For all of these reasons and in all of these respects it seems to me that the true scientific and scholarly spirit requires considerable diffidence and restraint by economists. ….. Economics, for all its limits, is one of mankind’s great possessions. Economics is rich and robust, indeed more so than its typical detractors and critics acknowledge. But the nature of its practice and its strength carries with it limitations. Diffidence, not hubris, is called for. … Let a sense of modesty replace hubris. Let a sense of perspective, openness and multiplicity and a tolerance for ambiguity replace the lust to be authoritative. Let the exercise of professional expertise enlighten the choice process rather than serve, illegitimately, to mask both ideology and the surreptitious making of normative assumptions.”(Samuels, 1998, p. 346, pp. 360~361)

然当经济学者为确保其科学家和政策专家之「地位」（status）[41]而傲慢、冥顽不灵，则要挣脱此种桎梏，只有呼应林俊义教授于1998年11月21日在中国时报时论广场所发表的：科学哲学基础薄弱，台湾发展隐忧：科研执着技术层次，在国际只能做卫星附庸；欲建立学术实践主体性，须扎下科学哲学深根[42]。实际上，国外经济学界早已注意到这个问题，国内经济学界，对此，似乎完全无知，在「一般均衡」（general equilibrium）的世界中，激不起一丝丝的涟漪[43]：

”At the same time, there is a growing methodological self-consciousness within economics itself. The rise of economics to prominence in public life, … ..., has intensified the scrutiny directed against it by other disciplines, not least from those displaced in influence and authority. Much of that scrutiny is methodological in character.” (Brennan and Waterman, 1994, p.5)。

“Economists have been looking for the key to scientific success in the philosophy of science. They will find much valuable in the philosophy of science, but a formula for success will not be among the fruits won. If we really want to know we can do advance science, we can guarantee that this attitude, scientific rationalism – tolerance, honesty, commitment to the advance of science above personal advance and to the freedom to exercise criticism, a willingness to listen and learn from others, and so on – is not violated and becomes entrenched as a tradition.”

“This, of course, is a plea for a good liberal arts education to counteract Fachidiotie. Moreover,it indicates how valuable methodology is for economics because methodology emphasizes limitations, valid argument, reflection upon purpose.” (Redman, 1993, p. 172, p. 164)

一九九二年，更有包括Modigliani, Samuelson[44], Simon, Tinbergen 等四位诺贝尔经济学奖得主在内的四十四位经济学者，联名在AER年会论文集刊登广告："A Plea For A Pluralistic And Rigorous Economics"，其主要内容：

"We the undersigned are concerned with the threat to economic science posed by intellectual monopoly. Economists today enforce a monopoly of method or core assumptions, often defended on no better ground that it constitutes the "mainstream". Economists will advocate free competition, but will not practice it in the marketplace of ideas."

"Consequently, we call for a new spirit of pluralism in economics, involving critical conversation and tolerant communication between different approaches. Such pluralism should not undermine the standards of rigor; not a less, rigorous science."

"We believe that the new pluralism should be reflected in the character of scientific debate, in the range of contributions in its journals, and in the training and hiring of economists."(AER, 1992, 粗体为笔者所加)。

参考文献

黄世鑫（1998/2000），财政学概论，修订再版，台北：国立空中大学。

黄世鑫（2002），真理或邪说？理论或教条？独尊新古典经济主义的祸患，李文

志、萧全政主编，社会科学在台湾，台北：元照出版社，第五章，页159~211。（暨南国际大学公共行政与政策学系举办之社会科学在台湾学术研讨会（2000.12.23）发表论文）。

Blatt, John (1983), How Economists Misuse Mathematics, in: Alfred S. Eichner (ed.),

Why Economics is not yet a Science, Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 166~186.

Boulding, Kenneth E. (1969), Economics As a Mora Science, in: American Economic

Review, Vol. 59, pp.1-12.

Brennan, H. Geoffrey, and A.M.C. Waterman (1994), Introduction: Economics and

Religion? In: H. Geoffrey Brennan and A.M.C. Waterman (eds.), Economics and Religion: Are They Distinct? Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Ch. 1.

Brown, E. H Phelps (1972), The Underdevelopment of Economics, in: The Economic

Journal, Vol. 82, pp. 1-10.

Canterbery, E. Ray and Robert J. Burkhardt (1983), What Do We Mean By Asking

Whether Economics is a Science? in: Alfred S. Eichner (ed.), Why Economics is not yet a Science, Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 15~40.

Colander, David (1991), Why Aren’t Economists As Important As Garbagemen?

Essays on the State of Economics, New York, London: M.E. Sharpe.

Colander, David and Arjo Klamer (1987), The Making of an Economist, in: Economic

Perspective, vo. 1, pp. 95~111.

Deane, Phyllis (1983), The Scope and Method of Economic Science, in: The

Economic Journal, 93, pp. 1~12.

DeMartinom George (2000), Global Economy, Global Justice: Theoretical Objections

and Policy Alternatives to Neoliberalism, London and New York: Routledge.

Dugger, William M. and Howard J. Sherman (1998), Comparison of Marxism and

Institutionalism, in: David L. Prychitko (ed.), Why Economists Disagree: An Introduction to the Alternative Schools of Thought, New York: State University of New York Press, pp. 211~234.

Eichner, Alfred S. (1983a), Preface, in: Alfred S. Eichner (ed.), Why Economics is not

yet a Science, Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, pp. xiii~xiv.

Eichner, Alfred S. (1983b), Introduction, in: Alfred S. Eichner (ed.), Why Economics

is not yet a Science, Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 3~14.

Eichner, Alfred S. (1983c), Why Economics is not yet a Science, in: Alfred S. Eichner

(ed.), Why Economics is not yet a Science, Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, pp.205~241.

Frey, Brunno S. (1997), Not Just for the Money: An Economic Theory of Personal

Motivation, Cheltenham (UK) and Brookfield (US): Edward Elgar Publishing.

----, and Reiner Eichenberger (1997), Economists: First Semester, High

Flyers and UFOs, in: Peter A.G. van Bergeijk, A. Lans Bovenberg, Eric EC. van Damme, and Jarig van Sinderen(eds.), Economic Science and Practice: The Roles of Academic Economists and Policy-makers, Cheltenham (UK, Lyme (US): Edward Elgar, Ch. 2.

Galbraith, John K. (1973), Power and the Useful Economist, in: American Economic

Review, vol. 63, pp. 1~11.

Hansen, W. Lee (1991), The Education and Training of Economics Doctorates: Major

Findings of the Executive Secretary of the American Economic Association’s Commission on Graduate Education in Economics, in: Journal of Economic Literature, vol. XXIX, pp. 1054~1087.

Kapp, K. William (1968), In Defense of Institutional Economics, in: Swedish Journal

of Economics, vol. 70, no. 1, pp 1~18.

Kirchgässner, Gebhard (19999), On the Political Economy of Economic Policy

Advice, in: E. Mohr (ed.), The Transfer of Economic Knowledge, Cheltenham (UK), Northampton (MA, USA): Edward Elgar, Ch. 2.