Search results

Purpose – To answer the following questions: Is all knowledge based on “experience” in Hayek's view? Was he an “empiricist” or a “Kantian”? In what sense?

Methodology/approach – Starting from a thorough analysis of Hayek's explicit ideas about empiricism and experience in The Sensory Order and some related writings, I reconstruct his epistemology but also try to improve on it with the help of some other philosophers.

Findings – Empiricism has many meanings depending on how you define “experience.” Hayek is not a “sensationalist empiricist” because he does not believe that all knowledge is based on “sense experience.” However, given his ideas of “pre-sensory experience” and “experience of the race,” Hayek is a “post-positivist empiricist.” His empiricism can be improved upon by privileging what I call “selective experience.”

Research implications – The next step is to analyze Hayek's market economics and philosophy of science to see which kind of experience guides Hayekian entrepreneurs and scientists. If this line of research is continued, practical and social implications might follow.

Originality/value of the chapter – The question whether Hayek was an “empiricist” or a “Kantian” is an old question. However, this chapter is the first systematic analysis of his “empiricist” epistemology and his concept of “experience.” Moreover, it has value beyond Hayek scholarship since, in the general empiricism debate, epistemologists have almost ubiquitously assumed that “experience” means “sense experience.”

Purpose – To show the existence of two different lines of thought in economics: the Homo oeconomicus tradition and the evolutionary tradition.

Methodology/approach – Following Hayek, the author adopts the individualistic methodology. This allows to separate the Homo oeconomicus approach, which is a hyper-rationalistic construction concerned with the intentional results of human action, from the evolutionary approach, which is concerned with the unintended consequences of human conduct.

Findings – The Homo oeconomicus tradition incurs the methodological mistake of psychologism, a theory of human nature and a human psychology as they exist prior to society. And yet the nature of individual man itself must be placed within a social context and be explained. As the evolutionary tradition and Hayek suggest, the formation of the Ego and the development of the human mind moves over a range of intersubjective relations.

Research limitations/implications – Homo oeconomicus tries to maximize the result of human conduct. However, the concept of maximization neglects the fact that the exchange occurs as soon as a positive-sum game sets in; this is very different from maximization, which does not take into account the ‘compensations’ that the subject can achieve by means of the other dimensions of human action.

Originality/value of paper – To speak of ‘classical economists’, placing evolutionary scholars and strictly utilitarian ones under the same denomination is just as misleading as using the expression ‘neoclassical economists’ in referring to the evolutionary Menger and utilitarian Jevons and Walras.

“It is now becoming widely recognised that many of the central unresolved problems in economics turn on questions of knowledge” (Loasby, 1986, p. 41). Nearly twenty years after that was written, it may be appropriate to take a (necessarily selective) look at ideas about human knowledge and to suggest some implications for the practice of economists. The ideas with which we shall begin long predate the observation that I have just recalled; and the delay in recognising their implications indicates how the growth of knowledge is dependent on the formation of appropriate linkages – which of course are not recognised as appropriate until they have been formed. Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall and Friedrich Hayek were all confronted with the uncertain basis of knowledge before they began their study of economics; and what their responses have in common is not only a theoretical focus on the process by which people develop what we call “knowledge” but also a reliance on similar kinds of process, which result in the formation of connections within particular domains. Each author recognises the impossibility of demonstrating that any such process can deliver proven truth; instead each envisages sequences of trial and error within particular contexts, leading to the preservation of what seems to work – until it no longer does, when a new sequence of trial and error begins. In other words, they all offer evolutionary theories, Marshall and Hayek explicitly so, while Smith, directly and indirectly, had a major influence on the development of Darwin’s ideas.

Purpose – To present the argument that the paradigm of spontaneously self-ordering open adaptation is common to Hayek's thesis on the mind (The Sensory Order) and to his presentations of social science (the social order).

Methodology/approach – To show how Hayek's methodological stance for social science interrelates with his theoretical work in neuroscience and psychology, where the ‘connectionist’ paradigm is relevant to extensive writings upon the human condition.

Findings – •close parallels across biological, psychological and social adaptations give a basis for determining which methods are appropriate to gain knowledge about knowledge;•broad confirmation is evident that methods of proven worth to physical science have little relevance for the analysis of psychological and social phenomena, which are more complex than the phenomena of the material world.

Research limitations/implications – •that the social order rests upon common beliefs;•that no simple distinction separates subjective and objective knowledge;•that any drive for social science to match the precision of physical science is misguided;•that in seeking an objective focus, behaviourism eliminates crucial introspective insights upon motivation and goals.

Originality/value of paper – The presentation is one of exegesis showing the relevance of Hayek's seminal work in theoretical psychology to the broadest themes of human understanding and social adaptation.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the appropriateness of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to measure consumers’ acceptance and preference for eggs enriched with omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids as a health claim and to compare its results with the traditional nine-point hedonic scale.

The AHP was used as a multi-criteria decision analysis. Data were obtained from a face-to-face questionnaire completed by 122 consumers in a controlled environment in Cataluña (Spain).

Results showed the capacity of the AHP to analyse consumers’ acceptance and preferences. An agreement between the AHP and the nine-point scale was found showing that n-3 enriched eggs had lower flavour acceptance, conventional eggs had higher yolk colour acceptance, and conventional and the free-range eggs had similar and higher odour acceptance than the other egg types. The most important attributes that determine preferences for egg purchase were the type and the egg price followed by the origin and the egg size.

The AHP approach seems to be a reliable tool to evaluate consumers’ hedonic preferences. However, further testing on other food products with larger sample size is needed.

The AHP methodology has been widely used in many fields in the last decades, but to the knowledge, not in the sensory field. In the Spanish market, studies that analyse consumers’ preferences and acceptance of eggs are scarce, and new insights are needed particularly regarding n-3 enriched eggs.