No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
THE ROLE OF EXPERIMENTS IN ECONOMICS: REPLY TO JONES
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 June 2014
Abstract
Martin Jones has criticized my account of the methodology of experimental economics on three points: the impossibility of testing external validity claims in the laboratory, my reconstruction of external validity inferences as analogical arguments, and the distinction between laboratory and non-laboratory sciences. I defend my account here and try to eliminate some misunderstandings that may have prompted Jones’s criticism.
- Type
- Replies
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014
References
REFERENCES
Bardsley, N., Cubitt, R., Loomes, G., Moffatt, P., Starmer, C. and Sugden, R.. 2010. Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1999. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. 2011. Evidence, external validity and explanatory relevance. In Philosophy of Science Matters: The Philosophy of Peter Achinstein, ed. Morgan, G., 15–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, Y. P. and Chu, R. L.. 1990. The subsidence of preference reversals in simplified and marketlike experimental settings: a note. American Economic Review 80: 902–911.Google Scholar
Guala, F. 2005. The Methodology of Experimental Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guala, F. 2008. The experimental philosophy of experimental economics: replies to Alexandrova, Hargreaves-Heap, Hausman, and Hindriks. Journal of Economic Methodology 15: 224–231.Google Scholar
Guala, F. 2010. Extrapolation, analogy, and comparative process tracing. Philosophy of Science 77: 1070–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guala, F. 2012. Reciprocity: weak or strong? What punishment experiments do (and do not) demonstrate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 35: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hacking, I. 1992. The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. In Science as Practice and Culture, ed. Pickering, A.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jimenez-Buedo, M. 2011. Conceptual tools for assessing experiments: some well-entrenched confusions regarding the internal/external validity distinction. Journal of Economic Methodology 18: 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M. K. 2011. External validity and libraries of phenomena: a critique of Francesco Guala's methodology of experimental economics. Economics and Philosophy 27: 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S. and List, J. A.. 2007. What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives 21: 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, D. 2005. Evidence as passing a severe test; highly probable versus highly probed hypotheses. In Scientific Evidence: Philosophical Theories and Applications, ed. Achinstein, P., 95–127. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Schram, A. 2005. Artificiality: the tension between internal and external validity in economic experiments. Journal of Economic Methodology 12: 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starmer, C. 1999. Experiments in economics … (Should we trust the dismal scientists in white coats?). Journal of Economic Methodology 6: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, D. 2008. Across the Boundaries: Extrapolation and Causality in the Biological and Social Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steel, D. 2010. A new approach to argument by analogy: extrapolation and chain graphs. Philosophy of Science 77: 1058–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, J. A. 2009. The multiplicity of experimental protocols: a challenge to reductionist and non-reductionist models of the unity of neuroscience. Synthese 167: 511–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. 2005. Philosophy of Experimental Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar