@article{3421d7ca02ec4497ad5114d7886243c5,
title = "William Whewell and John Stuart Mill on the methodology of political economy",
author = "Samuel Hollander",
note = "Funding Information: *Department of Economics, University of Toronto, 150 St. George St., Toronto, Canada M5S 1Al. Several friends and colleagues have greatly helped with advice and criticism: Spencer Davis, Tom Kompas, Trevor Lever;, Margaret Schabas, Francis Sparshott, and Tim Tutton. I am much indebted to them. Research funds were provided by a Lady Davis Fellowship held at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem (1979- 80), and by the Canada Council. Their support is gratefully acknowledged. {\textquoteleft}R. E. Butts (ed.), William Wheweli{\textquoteright}s Theory of .ScienlificMethod(Pittsburgh, 1968), p. 17. Cf. also N.B. De Marchi and R. P. Sturges, {\textquoteleft}Malthus and Ricardo{\textquoteright}s Inductivist Critics: Four Letters to William Whewell{\textquoteright}, Economicu XL (November 1973), 380. who observe that deduction {\textquoteleft}takes general principles as given, and is concerned only with how they apply or are combined in particular cases. It is of prime importance therefore to ensure that one{\textquoteright}s premisses are well founded{\textquoteright}. {\textquoteleft}G. Buchdahl, {\textquoteleft}Inductivist versus Deductivist Approaches in the Philosophy of Science as Illustrated by Some Controversies Between Whewell and Mill{\textquoteright}, The Monirt 55 (July 1971). 343 - 67. See p. 345.",
year = "1983",
month = jan,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/0039-3681(83)90017-1",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "127--168",
journal = "Studies in History and Philosophy of Science",
issn = "0039-3681",
publisher = "Elsevier Ltd.",
number = "2",
}