David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Economics and Philosophy 24 (3):381-406 (2008)
We argue that neuroeconomics should be a mechanistic science. We defend this view as preferable both to a revolutionary perspective, according to which classical economics is eliminated in favour of neuroeconomics, and to a classical economic perspective, according to which economics is insulated from facts about psychology and neuroscience. We argue that, like other mechanistic sciences, neuroeconomics will earn its keep to the extent that it either reconfigures how economists think about decision-making or how neuroscientists think about brain mechanisms underlying behaviour. We discuss some ways that the search for mechanisms can bring about such top-down and bottom-up revision, and we consider some examples from the recent neuroeconomics literature of how varieties of progress of this sort might be achieved
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
David Michael Kaplan & Carl F. Craver (2011). The Explanatory Force of Dynamical and Mathematical Models in Neuroscience: A Mechanistic Perspective. Philosophy of Science 78 (4):601-627.
Roberto Fumagalli (2011). On the Neural Enrichment of Economic Models: Tractability, Trade-Offs and Multiple Levels of Description. Biology and Philosophy 26 (5):617-635.
Michiru Nagatsu (2013). Experimental Philosophy of Economics. Economics and Philosophy 29 (2):263-76.
Roberto Fumagalli (2010). The Disunity of Neuroeconomics: A Methodological Appraisal. Journal of Economic Methodology 17 (2):119-131.
Jack Vromen (2010). On the Surprising Finding That Expected Utility is Literally Computed in the Brain. Journal of Economic Methodology 17 (1):17-36.
Similar books and articles
N. P. Franks & W. R. Lieb (2000). The Role of NMDA Receptors in Consciousness: What We Learn From Anesthetic Mechanisms? In Thomas Metzinger (ed.), Neural Correlates of Consciousness. MIT Press. 265--269.
Victor A. F. Lamme (2001). Neural Mechanisms of Visual Awareness: A Linking Proposition. [REVIEW] Brain and Mind 1 (3):385-406.
Mark Sprevak (forthcoming). Commentary on 'Conceptual Challenges in the Neuroimaging of Psychiatric Disorders'. Philosophy, Psychiatry and Psychology.
Anil K. Seth (2007). The Functional Utility of Consciousness Depends on Content as Well as on State. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (1):106-106.
Jay Odenbaugh & Anna Alexandrova (2011). Buyer Beware: Robustness Analyses in Economics and Biology. Biology and Philosophy 26 (5):757-771.
George N. Reeke (1997). Constructivism: Can Directed Mutation Improve on Classical Neural Selection? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):574-575.
N. Leopold Logothetis & Sheinberg A. (2003). Neural Mechanisms of Perceptual Organization. In Naoyuki Osaka (ed.), Neural Basis of Consciousness. John Benjamins.
Anna Alexandrova (2009). The Invisible Hand in Economics: How Economists Explain Unintended Social Consequences , N. Emrah Aydinonat, Routledge, 2008, XVI + 258 Pages. [REVIEW] Economics and Philosophy 25 (3):371-378.
Duncan MacIntosh (1989). Modality, Mechanism and Translational Indeterminacy. Dialogue 28 (03):391-.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads53 ( #36,284 of 1,410,465 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #32,644 of 1,410,465 )
How can I increase my downloads?