Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T06:25:54.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY OF ECONOMICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2013

Michiru Nagatsu
Michiru Nagatsu*
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Finland, Tallinn University of Technology, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article is a prelude to an experimental study of the preference concept in economics. I argue that a new empirical approach called experimental philosophy of science is a promising approach to advance the philosophy of economics. In particular, I discuss two debates in the field, the neuroeconomics controversy and the commonsensible realism debate, and suggest how experimental and survey techniques can generate data that will inform these debates. Some of the likely objections from philosophers and economists are addressed, and possible ways of operationalizing different preference concepts are illustrated.

Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 29 , Issue 2: Experiments in economics and philosophy , July 2013 , pp. 263 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arrow, K. 1982. Risk perception in psychology and economics. Economic Inquiry 20: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, G. S. 1962. Irrational behavior and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy 70: 1–13.Google Scholar
Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G. and Prelec, D.. 2005. Neuroeconomics: how neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature 43: 9–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, H. 2004. Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Craver, C. F. and Alexandrova, A.. 2008. No revolution necessary: Neural mechanisms for economics. Economics and Philosophy 24: 381–406.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1953. The methodology of positive economics. In Essays in Positive Economics, pp. 3–43. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gode, D. K. and Sunder, S. 1993. Allocative efficiency of markets with zero-intelligence traders: market as a partial substitute for individual rationality. Journal of Political Economy 101: 119–137.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P., Machery, E. and Linquist, S.. 2009. The vernacular concept of innateness. Mind and Language 24: 605–630.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. E. 2002. What is innateness? The Monist 85: 70–85.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. E. 2009. The distinction between innate and acquired characteristics. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2009 Edition, ed. Zalta, E. N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. E. and Stotz, K.. 2006. Genes in the postgenomic era. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27: 499–521.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. E. and Stotz, K.. 2008. Experimental philosophy of science. Philosophy Compass 3: 507–521.Google Scholar
Guala, F. 2000. The logic of normative falsification: Rationality and experiments in decision theory. Journal of Economic Methodology 7: 59–93.Google Scholar
Guala, F. 2011. Are preferences for real? Choice theory, folk psychology, and the hard case for commonsensible realism. In Economics for Real: Uskali Mäki and the Place of Truth in Economics, ed. Kuorikoski, J., Lehtinen, A. and Ylikoski, P., 137–155. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gul, F. and Pesendorfer, W.. 2008. The case for mindless economics. In The Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics: A Handbook, ed. Caplin, A. and Schotter, A., 3–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hands, W. 2011. Realism, commonsensibles, and economics: The case of contemporary revealed preference theory. In Economics for Real: Uskali Mäki and the Place of Truth in Economics, ed. Ylikoski, P., Lehtinen, A. and Kuorikoski, J., 156–178. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. W. 2008. Neuroeconomics: a critical reconsideration. Economics and Philosophy 24: 303–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, D. M. 1998. Problems with realism in economics. Economics and Philosophy 14: 185–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoeffler, S. and Ariely, D. 1999. Constructing stable preferences: a look into dimensions of experience and their impact on preference stability. Journal of Consumer Psychology 8: 113–139.Google Scholar
Hoover, K. 1995. Is macroeconomics for real? The Monist 78: 235–257.Google Scholar
Knobe, J. 2007. Experimental philosophy. Philosophy Compass 2: 81–92.Google Scholar
Knobe, J. and Samuels, R.. 2013. Thinking like a scientist: Innateness as a case study. Cognition 126: 72–86.Google Scholar
Linquist, S., Machery, E., Griffiths, P. E. and Stotz, K.. 2011. Exploring the folkbiological concept of human nature. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: B Biological Sciences 366: 444–453.Google Scholar
Mäki, U. 2000. Reclaiming relevant realism. Journal of Economic Methodology 7: 109–125.Google Scholar
Moss, L. 2003. What Genes can't Do. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nagatsu, M. 2010. Beyond circularity and normativity: measurement and progress in behavioral economics. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40: 265–290.Google Scholar
Nock, S. L. and Guterbock, T. M.. 2010. Survey experiments. In Handbook of Survey Research, 2nd edn., ed. Marsden, P. V. and Wright, J. D., 837–864. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group Limited.Google Scholar
Ross, D. 2011. Estranged parents and a schizophrenic child: choice in economics, psychology and neuroeconomics. Journal of Economic Methodology 18: 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satz, D. and Ferejohn, J.. 1994. Rational choice and social theory. Journal of Philosophy 91: 71–87.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. 1995. The construction of preference. American Psychologist 50: 364–371.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. 2008. Experimental philosophy and philosophical intuition. In Experimental Philosophy, ed. Knobe, J. and Nichols, S., 231–240. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stotz, K. 2009. Experimental philosophy of biology: notes from the field. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40: 233–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stotz, K., Griffiths, P. E. and Knight, R.. 2004. How biologists conceptualize genes: an empirical study. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 35: 647–673.Google Scholar
Stotz, K. C., Bostanci, A. and Griffiths, P. E.. 2006. Tracking the shift to ‘postgenomics’. Community Genetics 9: 190–196.Google Scholar
Wallander, L. 2009. 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: a review. Social Science Research 38: 505–520.Google Scholar
Weinberg, J. M. and Crowley, S.. 2009. The x-phi(les): unusual insights into the nature of inquiry. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40: 227–232.Google Scholar
Wilcox, N. T. 2008. Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: a critical primer and econometric comparison. In Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 12, Risk Aversion in Experiments, ed. Cox, J. C. and Harrison, G. W., 197–292. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar