ABSTRACT
Pride of place in any critique of, or elaboration of possibilities for, economics ought to be (and indeed essentially always is) allocated to epistemology (rather than say ontology). This is Bruce McFarling’s central contention. In advancing it, McFarling indicates that by epistemology he means the philosophical activity concerned with explanatory method, criteria and units of analysis. His general critique of Reorienting Economics is that I over-(or mis-) emphasise ontology. Although I give star billing to ontology, I actually give the starring role to epistemology. More specifically:
1 Although I fail to recognise it, epistemology, not (as I claim) ontology, takes the lead role in my critique of the mainstream project of modern economics.
