Template-type: ReDIF-Paper 1.0
Author-Name: Silvestri, Paolo
Author-Email: paolo.silvestri@unito.it
Author-Workplace-Name: University of Turin
Author-Workplace-Homepage: http://www.est.unito.it/
Title: Disputed (Disciplinary) Boundaries. Philosophy, Economics, Value Judgments.
Abstract: This paper aims to address the following two questions: a) what is the logic of the kind of discourse 
that seeks to found, demarcate or defend the autonomy or the boundaries of a discipline; b) why does this discourse, 
whether methodological, ontological or epistemological, sometimes turn into normative, dogmatic-excommunicating 
wrangles among disciplines, schools or scholars? I will argue that an adequate answer may be found if we understand: 
1) disciplines as institutions and, therefore, as dogmatic systems, where scholars’ discourse often takes the form of 
a legitimizing discourse regarding the founding Reference of their own discipline; 2) that scholars speak in the name 
of that very foundation, with which they closely identify; 3) that the issue of the legitimacy of a discipline 
cannot easily be separated from the issue of identity and, therefore, of a scholar’s legitimacy; 4) that the 
excommunication may arise not only when the founding Reference is absolutized, but also as a form of self-defense 
of a scholar’s identity-legitimacy. To understand these claims I will re-examine three paradigmatic positions: 
the methodological, ontological and epistemological considerations put forward by (and the debates between) 
Pareto, Croce and Einaudi – with specific reference to the demarcation between philosophy, economics and value-judgments.
Length: pages 49
Creation-Date: 2017-01
File-URL: http://www.est.unito.it/do/home.pl/Download?doc=/allegati/wp2017dip/wp_4_2017.pdf
File-Format: Application/PDF
Handle: RePEc:uto:cesmep:201701