经济学方法论之争:如何理解实证主义与实证研究?——与陆铭、朱海就等商榷

Debate on Economic Methodology: How to Understand Positivism and Empirical Research: the Discussion with LU Ming and ZHU Haijiu

为了辨明有关实证主义研究方法争论的关键所在,也为了提高学术对话的效率,本文将讨论的重点放在最近陆铭的《如何把实证研究进行到底》以及朱海就对陆铭文章相关批评的评论上。可以说,支持和反对实证主义的理由都很多而且都很有说服力,不过,任何方法和范式都是在一定限度内具有有效性。实证主义研究方法的快速发展及其主流的方法论地位对于社会科学发展而言是喜忧参半的,其对于社会科学知识的积累显然做出了巨大的贡献。但是,实证主义过度追求形式化和数理化的趋势极大地弱化了其对现实世界的描述和解释功能,从而对于政策制定和实施的指导性价值也随之降低了。

In order to identify the key to the debate on positivist research methods, and to improve the efficiency of academic exchange, this paper will focus on the recent essay of “How to Carry Out a Thorough Empirical Research” by Lu Ming and Zhu Haijiu's critics on it. There are many convincing reasons for supporting and opposing positivism, but any method and paradigm are effective within certain limits. The rapid development of positivist research methods, and its mainstream methodological status, which has clearly made a great contribution to the accumulation of social science knowledge, are mixed blessings for the development of social sciences: for the characteristics of excessive pursuit of formalization and being mathematical in positivism has greatly weakened its description and interpretation of the real world, decreasing the guiding value for policy making and implementation.