Fogel and North, both of them old radicals in the 1950s, received the Nobel Memorial Prize in 1993 for their advocacy—and practice—during the 1960s and 1970s of quantitative methods and especially of basic economic thinking in the study of the economic past. Both were scientific giants, and great teachers and advocates. But even giants make mistakes, and in both cases the mistakes became more evident in the decades after they received the glittering prize. Fogel’s late-career studies of health and welfare, though admirably serious examples of applied economics right to the end, were less scientifically pioneering than his work on railways or slavery. North’s much more influential advocacy—and very much less his practice—of neo-institutionalism, by contrast, was probably a scientific error. Fogel realized more and more the salience of ethics in the economy, and even taught (philosophically unsophisticated) courses on business ethics. North drifted further and further from the essentially ethical underpinnings of an innovative economy, speaking of “brain science” rather than the mind-scanning equipment of the humanities, and led his many followers in the drift.

中文翻译：

---

克服朴素的科学主义c。1950年：福格尔和诺斯搞错了什么

福格尔和诺斯都是1950年代的激进分子，因其在1960年代和1970年代期间对经济过去的研究中的定量方法，特别是基本经济思想的倡导和实践而获得1993年诺贝尔奖。他们都是科学巨人，都是伟大的老师和倡导者。但是，即使是巨人也会犯错，在这两种情况下，错误都在他们获得光彩夺目的奖项后的几十年中变得更加明显。福格尔在健康和福利方面的后期职业研究，尽管在应用经济学权利到最终的运用方面有着令人称赞的严肃例子，但在科学上却不如他在铁路或奴隶制方面的开创性。相比之下，诺斯对新制度主义更具影响力的倡导（而少了他的实践），可能是科学错误。福格尔越来越认识到道德在经济中的重要性，甚至开设了关于商业道德的课程（从哲学上讲并不复杂）。诺斯（North）从创新经济的基本道德基础越来越远，谈到了“脑科学”，而不是人文科学的思维扫描设备，并带领了他的许多追随者。