Is engaged pluralism the best way ahead for economic geography? Commentary on Barnes and Sheppard (2009)

Abstract

Barnes and Sheppard (2009) assume that an anti-monist and anti-reductionist economic geography is desirable and that this desirability is so obvious that no argument needs to be advanced in its support. This commentary challenges this assumption and suggests that a monist and reductionist economic geography organized around the idea of truth-seeking is neither unthinkable nor unpalatable. In order to flesh out this idea, the commentary builds on recent work in the philosophy of scientific induction to show why one of its less publicized advances — error statistical theory — holds far more promise for the future development of economic geography than Barnes and Sheppard’s vague and nebulous ‘engaged pluralism’.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.