Journal of Economic Methodology 18 (3):217-231 (2011)
Gul and Pesendorfer provide the best-known and most strident of a set of recent backlashes by economists against methodological revolutions promoted by some behavioural economists and neuroeconomists. Philosophers are likely to read these responses as merely reactionary, especially as their rhetoric goes beyond what their explicit argumentation validly supports. The present paper identifies the accurate insight on Gul and Pesendorfer's part that explains the impact of their philosophically ragged polemic. This centers on importantly different concepts of choice in the psychological and economic literatures. The psychologist's idea of choice descends from a culturally familiar folk construct generally thought to lie within everyone's unreflective personal acquantance. By contrast, the economist's concept of choice refers to abstract sensitivity of behavioral patterns to changes in incentives, typically at the statistical level of populations. It is reasonable to regard this abstract idea as the basic subject matter of economics, just as Gul and Pesendorfer assert. Appreciating the difference between psychological choice and economic choice is crucial for understanding the methodologically schizophrenic character of neuroeconomics. Much of it merely identifies neural correlates of elements from models in the psychology of valuation. However, the neuroeconomics worthy of the name, as constructed by Glimcher and his collaborators, aims to unify economics and neuroscience. It so far fails to do so in an entirely satisfactory way because it falsely assumes that the conception of choice in psychology and economics is already shared.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind.Paul M. Churchland - 1979 - Cambridge University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Foundations of Contemporary Revealed Preference Theory.D. Wade Hands - 2013 - Erkenntnis 78 (5):1081-1108.
Experimental Philosophy of Economics.Michiru Nagatsu - 2013 - Economics and Philosophy 29 (2):263-76.
Similar books and articles
Neuroeconomics: More Than Inspiration, Less Than Revolution.N. Emrah Aydinonat - 2010 - Journal of Economic Methodology 17 (2):159-169.
The Disunity of Neuroeconomics: A Methodological Appraisal.Roberto Fumagalli - 2010 - Journal of Economic Methodology 17 (2):119-131.
Where Economics and Neuroscience Might Meet.Jack Vromen - 2010 - Journal of Economic Methodology 17 (2):171-183.
The Methodologies of Neuroeconomics.Glenn Harrison & Don Ross - 2010 - Journal of Economic Methodology 17 (2):185-196.
Neuroeconomics, Neurophysiology and the Common Currency Hypothesis.Anthony Landreth & John Bickle - 2008 - Economics and Philosophy 24 (3):419-429.
New Developments in Psychological Choice Modeling.Geert de Soete, Hubert Feger & Karl C. Klauer (eds.) - 1989 - Distributors for the United States and Canada, Elsevier Science.
Limits to Action, the Allocation of Individual Behavior.J. E. R. Staddon (ed.) - 1980 - Academic Press.
The Insignificance of Choice.J. S. Biehl - 2008 - In David Chan (ed.), Moral Psychology Today: Essays on Value, Rational Choice, and the Will. Springer. pp. 110--75.
Neuroscience, Choice, and the Free Will Debate.Jason Shepard & Shane Reuter - 2012 - American Journal of Bioethics - Neuroscience 3 (3):7-11.
Is Neuroeconomics Doomed by the Reverse Inference Fallacy?Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde - 2010 - Mind and Society 9 (2):229-249.
On the Neural Enrichment of Economic Models: Tractability, Trade-Offs and Multiple Levels of Description.Roberto Fumagalli - 2011 - Biology and Philosophy 26 (5):617-635.
Added to index2012-02-20
Total downloads22 ( #219,000 of 2,146,977 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #226,050 of 2,146,977 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.