本文回顧拗折需求線理論史，並分別探討三種最具影響力的經濟學方法論主張-工具主義、先驗方法、與證偽主義-所提供的理論評價標準是否能夠說明此一經濟思想史中的重要事件。我們在拗折需求線理論史中發現經濟學家相當重視拗折假設的真實性，而這意味著他們採取與工具主義相當不同的理論評價標準。除此之外，雖然實證測試一再否定拗折需求線理論的預測結果，但是經濟學界在1980年代以前仍然並遍接受此一理論，這個現象明顯與證偽主義不符。我們相信拗折需求線理論史正反映出先驗方法對於學思維與經濟學教育的深遠影響。 # 330 1$aThis paper investigates the history of kinked demand curves. Different criteria of appraisal provided by the three most influential schools of economic methodology---instrumentalism, a priori methodology, and falsificationism---are used to explain the success and decline of kinked demand curves in economics. We find that in the history of kinked demand curves economists put much emphasis on the reality of assumptions and adopt criteria of appraisal quite different from instrumentalism. We also find that although the predictions of kinked demand curves are repeatedly rejected by empirical tests, most economic textbooks still accept this theory as the standard explanation of price rigidity. This historical fact is obviously inconsistent with falsificationism. We believe that the puzzling phenomena found in the history of kinked demand curves reflect the profound influence of a priori methodology on economics.