To specialize or to innovate? An internalist account of pluralistic ignorance in economics

Synthese 191 (11):2499-2511 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Academic and corporate research departments alike face a crucial dilemma: to exploit known frameworks or to explore new ones; to specialize or to innovate? Here I show that these two conflicting epistemic desiderata are sufficient to explain pluralistic ignorance and its boom-and-bust-like dynamics, exemplified in the collapse of the efficient markets hypothesis as a modern risk management paradigm in 2007. The internalist nature of this result, together with its robustness, suggests that pluralistic ignorance is an inherent feature rather than a threat to the rationality of epistemic communities.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,932

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-03-25

Downloads
80 (#204,331)

6 months
9 (#436,568)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Rogier De Langhe
Tilburg University

Citations of this work

The diffusion of scientific innovations: A role typology.Catherine Herfeld & Malte Doehne - 2019 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 77:64-80.
Scientific revolutions.Thomas Nickles - 2010 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas S. Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Edited by Ian Hacking.
Logical foundations of probability.Rudolf Carnap - 1950 - Chicago]: Chicago University of Chicago Press.
The Role of the Priority Rule in Science.Michael Strevens - 2003 - Journal of Philosophy 100 (2):55-79.

View all 7 references / Add more references