<p>I don't know who all the critics were but one of them was Thorstein Veblen. According to Ghosh (1984)<span class="math-container">$^1$</span>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Thorstein Veblen criticized orthodox economic theory of his day on the following counts: that it was teleological, hedonistic and taxonomic</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<ol>
<li>Ghosh, S. K. (1984). On the Validity of Veblen’s Criticisms of Economic Orthodoxy: An Analysis of His Positions in the Light of Current Conditions and Economic Thought. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 43(2), 235–246. <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3486740" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.jstor.org/stable/3486740</a></li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-26T09:38:08.303Z
2022-06-26T09:38:08.303Z
WilliamT
<p>In Hayek's essay, 'The Facts of the Social Sciences,' he mentioned &quot;that one of the best-known modern critics of the discipline has described [economics] as a purely taxonomic science.&quot;</p>
<p>Who is he referring to?</p>

<philosophy-of-economics><friedrich-hayek>
Who is Hayek referring to in this statement about taxonomy in economics?
David
# Who is Hayek referring to in this statement about taxonomy in economics?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-06-26)

In Hayek's essay, 'The Facts of the Social Sciences,' he mentioned "that one of the best-known modern critics of the discipline has described [economics] as a purely taxonomic science."

Who is he referring to?

**Tags:** philosophy-of-economics, friedrich-hayek

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2022-06-26. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

I don't know who all the critics were but one of them was Thorstein Veblen. According to Ghosh (1984)$^1$:

> Thorstein Veblen criticized orthodox economic theory of his day on the following counts: that it was teleological, hedonistic and taxonomic

---

1. Ghosh, S. K. (1984). On the Validity of Veblen’s Criticisms of Economic Orthodoxy: An Analysis of His Positions in the Light of Current Conditions and Economic Thought. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 43(2), 235–246. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3486740>


---

