Neoliberal philosophers rejected the idea that scientific method could directly shape social reform.

Evidence

Rougier and his Viennese colleagues hoped to demarcate a sphere of knowledge sheltered from the metaphysics inherent to any language, and by extension, to any political ideologies. For Hayek, Rougier, and Popper, the application of the methods of empirical science to social phenomena raised methodological dilemmas, which were superimposed onto diverging political orientations. While sharing the same imperative as their Viennese counterparts of demarcating a decontested language of science, neoliberal philosophers of science became skeptical of the powers of scientific method to directly shape social reform. Instead, they aspired to emulate the creative rupture they applauded in the philosophy of physics and mathematics to the doctrine of liberalism. — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 64

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the distinction between Popperian critical rationalism and Hayekian skepticism about science-driven planning — threads through later chapters on the roadmap to reform. — connects to: Early neoliberal economists rejected politicizing science while rivaling interventionists did not. — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free…, 130; Neoliberal thinkers rejected natural-science methods in social knowledge because inner consciousness is inaccessible — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 83; Neoliberals rejected classical liberalism’s rationalism in favor of critical conventionalism. — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 90 (+1 more)