About what is true.

In economic terms, related to Valueflows and hREA) - see below.

Related to p2p's general motto: verify, do not trust.

Also related to Edgar Morin's epistemology of complexity.

Key Epistemological Essays in Economics

Friedman: “The Methodology of Positive Economics” (in Essays in Positive Economics, 1953)
1. Core insight: Economics should focus on positive, not normative, statements—evaluating theories by predictive power, simplicity, and 'fruitfulness' rather than realistic assumptions.
2. Epistemological contribution: Establishes a pragmatic criterion—successful prediction—as the basis of theoretical legitimacy.
Hayek: “The Use of Knowledge in Society” (1945)
1. Core insight: Knowledge is decentralized and tacit; no central planner can aggregate all dispersed information. Market prices coordinate actions using local information.
2. Epistemological contribution: Emphasizes dispersed cognition, the limits of formal knowledge, and how markets serve as emergent information processors.
Lionel Robbins: An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science (1932, 1935)
1. Core insight: Defines economics as the study of human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means; explicitly value-neutral and focused on scarcity.
2. Epistemological contribution: Clarifies the scope of economic inquiry and separates positive from normative considerations.
Mises: Theory and History (1957)
1. Core insight: Advocates methodological dualism: social sciences must treat individual motivations and contexts separately from natural sciences. Introduces praxeology (the logic of human action), and thymology (historical understanding of motive as perceived by the actor).
2. Epistemological contribution: Emphasizes the universal, a priori structure of human action, while recognizing context-specific historical reconstructions.
Stapleford: “Historical Epistemology and the History of Economics: Views Through the Lens of Practice” (2017)
1. Core insight: Proposes treating economics as a social practice, adopting the lens of historical epistemology (à la Foucault, Bachelard).
2. Epistemological contribution: Suggests that understanding economics requires analyzing practical contexts, disciplinary norms, and historiographic practices, not just ideas in abstraction.
Ostillio: “A Brief Epistemology of Economic Models” (2016)
1. Core insight: Highlights how economic models exhibit untenable determinism, inadequate handling of uncertainty, and failure to deal with the identification problem.
2. Epistemological contribution: Argues that over-abstraction undermines explanatory power and consistency of economic modeling; calls for epistemic humility and better treatment of indeterminacy.
Sagal: “Epistemology of Economics” (1977)
1. Core insight: Critically examines three methodological positions:
  1. Ultra-empiricism (Hutchison)
  2. Moderate empiricism (Friedman)
  3. Extreme a priori (Robbins, Mises)
2. Epistemological contribution: Offers meta-level analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of these traditions; suggests that even a priori approaches retain value in certain contexts.

Summary Table
Essay / Author	Epistemological Focus
Friedman (Positive Economics)	Predictive power as epistemic criterion; pragmatic evaluation of theories
Hayek (Knowledge in Society)	Tacit and dispersed knowledge; markets as emergent knowledge processors
Robbins (Nature & Significance)	Scarcity-based definition; positive vs normative demarcation
Mises (Theory and History)	Methodological dualism; praxeology and thymology; intentionality and context
Stapleford (Historical Epistem.)	Economics as a practice; history of thought through disciplinary norms
Ostillio (Epistem. of Models)	Uncertainty, abstraction, determinism; limitations in model explanatory power
Sagal (Epistemology of Economics)	Analysis of epistemic approaches; value of a priori reasoning in economics

What Do These Essays Teach Us?

Economics is not purely empirical, it operates on a spectrum between a priori logic (Mises, Robbins) and empirical validation (Friedman).
Knowledge in economics is often tacit and contextual—markets function as decentralized processors of local, dispersed information (Hayek).
Scope of economics matters, Robbins' scarcity framework defines what economic science can and cannot claim.
Models are imperfect tools, they abstract heavily, sometimes ignoring uncertainty and complex causality (Ostillio).
Context and practice shape epistemology, Stapleford shows we must study the history and norms of economics as practiced, not just as theory.
Meta-analysis is valuable, Sagal’s work helps us understand the philosophical underpinnings and trade-offs between different epistemic traditions.

Edgar Morin and complexity in for Economics

If we apply Morin’s epistemology to economics, several critiques and transformations emerge:

A. Limits of Current Economic Epistemology

Equilibrium models: Assume closed systems tending toward stability; Morin’s view would stress economies as far-from-equilibrium systems with unpredictable dynamics.
Representative agent models: Neglect diversity, learning, and adaptation, complexity demands heterogeneous agents and network effects.
Ceteris paribus assumptions: Freeze dynamic interdependencies; complexity requires modeling the co-evolution of variables.
Exogenous shocks: Many “external” events (crises, innovations) are actually endogenously produced by the system’s structure.

B. A Complexity-Aware Economic Epistemology (Morin-inspired)

Contextualization: Economics is inseparable from ecology, culture, politics, meaning you cannot explain economic behavior without embedding it in these overlapping systems.
Interdisciplinarity as necessity: Not just importing tools, but creating a transdisciplinary epistemology where economics, sociology, anthropology, ecology, and history co-construct explanations.
Reflexivity: Economists are inside the system they study — their models, policies, and discourses influence the very reality they analyze (performative economics).
Dialogics: Recognize tensions: competition ↔ cooperation, stability ↔ instability, individual ↔ collective interests, efficiency ↔ resilience.
Incorporating uncertainty as structural: Instead of treating uncertainty as statistical noise, make it a generative driver (innovation, crises, adaptation).

Valueflows and truth

There is no philosophical definition of truth in Valueflows. Instead, it operationalizes truth through:

data structures,
relationships,
and layers of representation.

The question becomes: What must be the case in the Valueflows ontology for an economic statement to be considered true?

Truth as grounded traceability

The most important epistemic feature is this: Economic reality is represented as a directed graph of resource flows that can be traced and tracked. This leads to a first definition:

Truth condition #1: Traceability

An economic claim is “true” if it can be:

traced backward (provenance),
tracked forward (consequences),
through a chain of events affecting resources by agents.

This is fundamentally different from:

price-based truth (neoclassical economics),
equilibrium-based truth,
or utility-based truth.

Instead, truth becomes a verifiable path in a graph of real transformations.

Truth as event-based realism

Valueflows is built on REA (Resources–Events–Agents). Key point: An Economic Event is defined as an observed change in a resource. This implies:

Truth condition #2: Event grounding

A statement is true if:

it corresponds to an actual event,
that changed a resource state,
and is attributed to an agent.

Example: “10 units of wood were consumed” → true only if there exists an event that decreased that resource.

This is close to empirical realism, but more structured:

not just observation,
but typed, relational observation.

Truth as multi-layer coherence

Valueflows explicitly separates three layers:

Knowledge layer (rules, classifications)
Plan layer (intentions, commitments)
Observation layer (what actually happened)

This is extremely important epistemologically.

Truth condition #3: Cross-layer consistency

A statement gains epistemic strength when:

Plans → are fulfilled by events
Events → conform to knowledge definitions

So truth is not binary; it is: coherence across layers of intention, rule, and observation

This introduces a graded notion of truth:

planned but not executed → weak truth
executed but not aligned with plan → partial truth
executed and consistent → strong truth

Truth as agreement on what counts

Valueflows defines: A resource is something “agents agree should be accounted for.” This is crucial.

Truth condition #4: Inter-subjective agreement

There is no absolute ontology of “what exists economically”
Reality is partially constructed through agreement

So:

CO₂ can be a resource
knowledge can be a resource
care work can be a resource

→ if agents agree to account for it

This aligns with our definition of value, as not intrinsic, but emerging from relations and valuation

Truth as relational, not object-based

Traditional accounting: truth = balance sheet correctness

Valueflows: truth = consistency of relationships in a network

Because: everything is defined relationally: Agent ↔ Event ↔ Resource

Truth condition #5: Graph consistency

A model is “true” if:

flows are internally consistent,
no contradictions in resource quantities,
relationships form a coherent graph.

This is closer to database integrity constraints than to equilibrium equations.

Truth as inclusion of the real (anti-abstraction bias)

Valueflows explicitly contrasts itself with traditional accounting: It represents “real-world economic activity” instead of abstract debits/credits.

Truth condition #6: Ontological grounding

Truth requires: representation of actual processes (production, transport, use), not just symbolic financial representations.

This is a major epistemological shift:

Caption text
Traditional economics	Valueflows
Prices	Resource transformations
Utility	Observable events
Equilibrium	Ongoing processes

Truth as inclusion of externalities

Valueflows explicitly includes:

ecological agents
externalities as trackable resources
Truth condition

Truth condition #7: Boundary completeness

A statement is more “true” if:

it includes effects traditionally excluded:
environmental impact
social contributions

This directly addresses a major epistemic failure of economics: → systematic omission

Synthesis: Valueflows epistemology of truth

In Valueflows, an economic statement is true if it corresponds to a traceable, event-grounded, relationally consistent pattern of resource transformations among agents, validated across observation, plan, and knowledge layers, and recognized within an intersubjectively agreed ontology.

Critical insight: Valueflows does something very unusual, it shifts economic truth from equilibrium states to processual histories. This is closer to physics (state transitions), biology (metabolism), than to classical economics.

link to Edgar Morin
Morin principle	Valueflows realization
Systemic thinking	Directed graph of flows
Hologrammatic	Local events embed global structure
Recursive causality	Flows feed into future processes
Reflexivity	Knowledge–Plan–Observation loop
Uncertainty	Plans vs observations divergence
Contextualization	Inclusion of ecological agents

Truth

Contents