The article shows the methodological ambiguity of Keynes’ ideas. The simplified treatment of his views on the part of his followers is criticized. The author shows the difference between Keynes’ methodological disputes with classics and his debate with mathematical economists and econometricians, in particular with J. Tinbergen. It is shown that methodological discussions of 1930-1940 are actual for the assessment of the current state of economic science in Russia.
Philosophy of Law in the Context of Post-non-classical Science: Methodological Pluralism and the Case of Communicative Theory of Law
