Business and Society Review, Volume 127, Issue S1, Page 223-251, Spring 2022.

Derivational robustness may increase the degree to which various pieces of evidence indirectly confirm a robust result. There are two ways in which this increase may come about. First, if one can show that a result is robust, and that the various individual models used to derive it also have other confirmed results, these other results may indirectly confirm the robust result. Confirmation derives from the fact that data not known to bear on a result are shown to be relevant (...) when it is shown to be robust. Second, robustness may increase the degree to which the robust result is indirectly confirmed if it increases the weight with which existing evidence indirectly confirms it. This may happen when it strengthens the connection between the core and the robust result by showing that auxiliaries are not responsible for the result. (shrink)

The most common argument against the use of rational choice models outside economics is that they make unrealistic assumptions about individual behavior. We argue that whether the falsity of assumptions matters in a given model depends on which factors are explanatorily relevant. Since the explanatory factors may vary from application to application, effective criticism of economic model building should be based on model-specific arguments showing how the result really depends on the false assumptions. However, some modeling results in imperialistic applications (...) are relatively robust with respect to unrealistic assumptions. Key Words: unrealistic assumptions • economics imperialism • rational choice • as if • robustness. (shrink)

This paper provides a conceptual framework that allows for distinguishing between different kinds of generalisation and applicability. It is argued that generalising models may bring epistemic benefits. They do so if they show that restrictive and unrealistic assumptions do not threaten the credibility of results derived from models. There are two different notions of applicability, generic and specific, which give rise to three different kinds of generalizations. Only generalising a result brings epistemic benefits concerning the truth of model components or (...) results. Abstracting the model and applying the model into new systems are not intrinsically epistemically beneficial in this way. The Dixit-Stiglitz model of monopolistic competition is used as an illustration. (shrink)

Robustness may increase the degree to which the robust result is indirectly confirmed if it is shown to depend on confirmed rather than disconfirmed assumptions. Although increasing the weight with which existing evidence indirectly confirms it in such a case, robustness may also be irrelevant for confirmation, or may even disconfirm. Whether or not it confirms depends on the available data and on what other results have already been established.

Like other mathematically intensive sciences, economics is becoming increasingly computerized. Despite the extent of the computation, however, there is very little true simulation. Simple computation is a form of theory articulation, whereas true simulation is analogous to an experimental procedure. Successful computation is faithful to an underlying mathematical model, whereas successful simulation directly mimics a process or a system. The computer is seen as a legitimate tool in economics only when traditional analytical solutions cannot be derived, i.e., only as a (...) purely computational aid. We argue that true simulation is seldom practiced because it does not fit the conception of understanding inherent in mainstream economics. According to this conception, understanding is constituted by analytical derivation from a set of fundamental economic axioms. We articulate this conception using the concept of economists' perfect model. Since the deductive links between the assumptions and the consequences are not transparent in ‘bottom‐up’ generative microsimulations, microsimulations cannot correspond to the perfect model and economists do not therefore consider them viable candidates for generating theories that enhance economic understanding. (shrink)

This paper studies the welfare consequences of strategic voting in two commonly used parliamentary agendas by comparing the average utilities obtained in simulated voting under two behavioural assumptions: expected utility maximising behaviour and sincere behaviour. The average utility obtained in simulations is higher with expected utility maximising behaviour than with sincere voting behaviour under a broad range of assumptions. Strategic voting increases welfare particularly if the distribution of preference intensities correlates with voter types.

In nature, cells face a variety of stresses that cause physical damage to the plasma membrane and cell wall. It is well established that evolutionarily conserved cell cycle checkpoints monitor various cellular perturbations, including DNA damage and spindle misalignment. However, the ability of these cell cycle checkpoints to sense a damaged plasma membrane/cell wall is poorly understood. To the best of our knowledge, our recent paper described the first example of such a checkpoint, using budding yeast as a model. In (...) this review, we will discuss this important question as well as provide hypothetical explanations to be tested in the future. (shrink)

The paper is based on a review of research on media selection and related topics on the one hand and on an explorative pilot survey on the other. In summarising the review, the authors propose that the factors explaining media choice be grouped into five categories: (1) the properties of the media itself affect its choice, (2) properties of the user affect media choice, (3) the communication situation plays an important role, (4) macro factors explain media choice, and (5) media (...) choice can be explained as the outcome of a dynamic multiparty negotiation process. The pilot survey compares Japanese and Finnish students’ preference of media in various communication situations. The survey results encourage reserving, local macro factors or culture, a certain amount of explanatory force in explaining media choice. (shrink)

This book provides the first comprehensive and critical examination of Mäki's realist philosophy of economics.

It is argued in this paper that amalgamating confirmation from various sources is relevantly different from social-choice contexts, and that proving an impossibility theorem for aggregating confirmation measures directs attention to irrelevant issues.

This paper provides the first systematic epistemological account of simulated data in empirical science. We focus on the epistemic issues modelers face when they generate simulated data to solve problems with empirical datasets, research tools, or experiments. We argue that for simulated data to count as epistemically reliable, a simulation model does not have to mimic its target. Instead, some models take empirical data as a target, and simulated data may successfully mimic such a target even if the model does (...) not. We show how to distinguish between simulated and empirical data, and we also offer a definition of simulation that can accommodate Monte Carlo models. We shed light on the epistemology of simulated data by providing a taxonomy of four different mimicking relations that differ concerning the nature of the relation or relata. We illustrate mimicking relations with examples from different sciences. Our main claim is that the epistemic evaluation of simulated data should start with recognizing the diversity of mimicking relations rather than presuming that only one relation existed. (shrink)

Kirjasymposio Eerik Lagerspetzin Social Choice and Democratic Values – kirjasta. Kenneth Arrowia seuraten Lagerspetz pitää sosiaalisen valinnan teorian suurimpana vahvuutena sitä, että sen tuloksia voidaan käyttää monissa erilaisissa yhteyksissä. Minä taas pidän teorian suurimpana heikkoutena sen vaikeutta: tutkijat eivät ole päässeet yhteisymmärrykseen erityisesti ns. epärelevanttien vaihtoehtojen riippumattomuusehdon tulkinnasta ja muotoilusta. Lagerspetz hyväksyy kirjassaan nähdäkseni seuraavat väitteet: kaikki demokraattiset äänestyssäännöt rikkovat riippumattomuusehtoa, mutta että tuo ehto on silti normatiivisesti perusteltu. Arrow’n ehdot ovat intuitiivisesti ottaen hyväksyttävissä. Koska riippumattomuusehdon rikkoutumisesta seuraa strategista äänestämistä (...) ja strateginen äänestäminen on normatiivisesti katsottuna ei-toivottavaa tai jopa moraalisesti kyseenalaista, strategisen äänestämisen poissulkeminen olisi paras mahdollinen argumentti riippumattomuusehdon puolesta. Lisäksi säännöt jotka toteuttavat riippumattomuusehdon ovat immuuneja strategiselle käyttäytymiselle. Hyvin toimiva äänestyssääntö luo puhtaasti mekaanisen yhteyden yksilöiden mielipiteiden ja kollektiivisen valinnan välille. Tämän kirjoituksen ensisijainen tavoite on kumota jokainen edellisessä kappaleessa esitetty väite. (shrink)

Personnalité et irrationalité chez Merleau-PontyUne personnalité est l’ensemble des traits et des qualités propres à une personne spécifique. Il s’agit d’un être humain concret, considéré dans sa totalité et distinct des autres individus. Merleau-Ponty s’est peu intéressé au concept de “personnalité”. Mais il fait référence au concept de totalité pour un individu lorsqu’il parle d’ “existence” ou d’ “être humain”. Grâce à la clarification du concept merleau-pontien de personnalité, je voudrais démontrer ce qui suit : la philosophie merleau-pontienne de la (...) structure caractérise la personnalité humaine comme un tout. Cette idée est héritée du “personnalisme” de la psychologie française inauguré par Ribot. La personnalité ainsi définie possède une rationalité téléologique (un objet visé). Cependant, lorsque Merleau-Ponty propose plus tard le concept d’“institution”, il souligne que toute signification de l’expérience humaine se fonde sur une expérience particulière et sur un point de vue concret ayant valeur de dimension, de niveau, ou encore sur un critère qui donne un sens à l’expérience suivante. S’il en est ainsi, les êtres humains doivent posséder une irrationalité fondamentale au coeur de leur personnalité ; irrationalité désigne une attitude attachée à une expérience particulière ou à un point de vue singulier. Les hommes peuvent “ré-instituer” leur expérience, c’est-à-dire abolir et transformer une dimension, un niveau ou un critère de l’expérience en y intégrant d’autres points de vue à travers leurs relations intersubjectives. Ils gagnent ainsi en nuance et en objectivité. Cependant, ils ne parviennent jamais à une rationalité totale si celle-ci se définit par une pensée totalement objective, universelle et non située, capable de voir le monde de nulle part. La ré-institution pourrait aussi entraîner une rupture dans la personnalité de quelqu’un et la rendre complexe et multiple, sans être pathologique pour autant.Personalità e irrazionalità in Merleau-PontyLa personalità è l’insieme delle qualità e dei tratti peculiari di una certa persona. È un essere umano concreto, preso nella sua interezza e distinto dagli altri individui. Merleau-Ponty non si è mai occupato molto del concetto di “personalità”. Ma si è riferito a tale concetto di totalità di un individuo sotto i nomi di “esistenza” o “essere umano”. Chiarendo la concezione merleau-pontiana della “personalità”, intendo sostenere che la filosofia della struttura di Merleau-Ponty caratterizza la personalità umana come un tutto unificato. Quest’idea è un’eredità del “personalismo” della psicologia francese inaugurata da Ribot. La personalità definita come tale ha una razionalità teleologica (orientata ad un obiettivo). Tuttavia, quando Merleau-Ponty propose più tardi il concetto di “istituzione”, sottolineò più di quanto avesse fatto precedentemente che perché ogni esperienza umana abbia un significato occore stabilire una particolare esperienza ed un punto di vista concreto quale dimensione, livello, o criterio che dia significato all’esperienza successiva. Se così è, gli esseri umani devono avere una fondamentale irrazionalità nel profondo della loro personalità, intendendo con irrazionalità un atteggiamento che è legato ad una particolare esperienza o punto di vista. Gli esseri umani possono “re-istituire” la loro esperienza, ovvero, riconsiderare una dimensione, un livello, o un criterio dell’esperienza attraverso l’integrazione degli altri punti di vista grazie alle loro relazioni intersoggettive. Guadagnano, così, sfumature e obiettività. Tuttavia, non possono mai realizzare la razionalità completa se per razionalità s’intende il pensiero completamente oggettivo, universale, imparziale, che guarda il mondo da nessun luogo. E la re-istituzione potrebbe creare una fessura decisiva nell’identità personale di un uomo, e rendere tale personalità complessa e “multipla,” anche se non necessariamente patologica. (shrink)

Personnalité et irrationalité chez Merleau-PontyUne personnalité est l’ensemble des traits et des qualités propres à une personne spécifique. Il s’agit d’un être humain concret, considéré dans sa totalité et distinct des autres individus. Merleau-Ponty s’est peu intéressé au concept de “personnalité”. Mais il fait référence au concept de totalité pour un individu lorsqu’il parle d’ “existence” ou d’ “être humain”. Grâce à la clarification du concept merleau-pontien de personnalité, je voudrais démontrer ce qui suit : la philosophie merleau-pontienne de la (...) structure caractérise la personnalité humaine comme un tout. Cette idée est héritée du “personnalisme” de la psychologie française inauguré par Ribot. La personnalité ainsi définie possède une rationalité téléologique (un objet visé). Cependant, lorsque Merleau-Ponty propose plus tard le concept d’“institution”, il souligne que toute signification de l’expérience humaine se fonde sur une expérience particulière et sur un point de vue concret ayant valeur de dimension, de niveau, ou encore sur un critère qui donne un sens à l’expérience suivante. S’il en est ainsi, les êtres humains doivent posséder une irrationalité fondamentale au coeur de leur personnalité ; irrationalité désigne une attitude attachée à une expérience particulière ou à un point de vue singulier. Les hommes peuvent “ré-instituer” leur expérience, c’est-à-dire abolir et transformer une dimension, un niveau ou un critère de l’expérience en y intégrant d’autres points de vue à travers leurs relations intersubjectives. Ils gagnent ainsi en nuance et en objectivité. Cependant, ils ne parviennent jamais à une rationalité totale si celle-ci se définit par une pensée totalement objective, universelle et non située, capable de voir le monde de nulle part. La ré-institution pourrait aussi entraîner une rupture dans la personnalité de quelqu’un et la rendre complexe et multiple, sans être pathologique pour autant.Personalità e irrazionalità in Merleau-PontyLa personalità è l’insieme delle qualità e dei tratti peculiari di una certa persona. È un essere umano concreto, preso nella sua interezza e distinto dagli altri individui. Merleau-Ponty non si è mai occupato molto del concetto di “personalità”. Ma si è riferito a tale concetto di totalità di un individuo sotto i nomi di “esistenza” o “essere umano”. Chiarendo la concezione merleau-pontiana della “personalità”, intendo sostenere che la filosofia della struttura di Merleau-Ponty caratterizza la personalità umana come un tutto unificato. Quest’idea è un’eredità del “personalismo” della psicologia francese inaugurata da Ribot. La personalità definita come tale ha una razionalità teleologica (orientata ad un obiettivo). Tuttavia, quando Merleau-Ponty propose più tardi il concetto di “istituzione”, sottolineò più di quanto avesse fatto precedentemente che perché ogni esperienza umana abbia un significato occore stabilire una particolare esperienza ed un punto di vista concreto quale dimensione, livello, o criterio che dia significato all’esperienza successiva. Se così è, gli esseri umani devono avere una fondamentale irrazionalità nel profondo della loro personalità, intendendo con irrazionalità un atteggiamento che è legato ad una particolare esperienza o punto di vista. Gli esseri umani possono “re-istituire” la loro esperienza, ovvero, riconsiderare una dimensione, un livello, o un criterio dell’esperienza attraverso l’integrazione degli altri punti di vista grazie alle loro relazioni intersoggettive. Guadagnano, così, sfumature e obiettività. Tuttavia, non possono mai realizzare la razionalità completa se per razionalità s’intende il pensiero completamente oggettivo, universale, imparziale, che guarda il mondo da nessun luogo. E la re-istituzione potrebbe creare una fessura decisiva nell’identità personale di un uomo, e rendere tale personalità complessa e “multipla,” anche se non necessariamente patologica. (shrink)

The lifeworld is, according to Husserl, the horizon of all our experiences, in the sense that it is the background environment of human being’s competences, practices, and attitudes. The lifeworld is the intersubjective, pre-given in the ontic sense, and immediately perceived world of everyday life. Although Husserl has distinguished the lifeworld from the objective world that natural science describes with mathematical methods, we cannot divide the world on the practical level into the perceived world of ordinary life and the scientific (...) world. The characteristic of human beings is that they live in the environment which they have enormously changed. Modern science has accelerated this tendency: the contemporary world is constructed so deeply scientifically and technologically. Accordingly, as Ulrich Beck pointed out, the risk of the technologically constructed world is often invisible/unperceivable. The disaster at Fukushima nuclear power plants is a terrible testament of this kind of risk. In order for a land to become the lifeworld of meaningful human interactions, the land should be first of all safe and livable for all of us. The risk calculation made by Tokyo Electric Power Company was shown to be sloppy and deceptive. The contemporary techno-science should be democratically governed and watched by all kinds of stakeholders, and never be left it to the specialists of science. For re-establishing the livable and sustainable lifeworld, safety, resilience, and vulnerability should be the fundamental values. And, the autonomy of the local residents, including the most vulnerable people, through the democratization of the techno-science must be the fundamental value to establish and protect such a safe environment. (shrink)

This paper provides a philosophical critique of social choice theory insofar as it deals with the normative evaluation of voting and voting rules. I will argue that the very method of evaluating voting rules in terms of whether they satisfy various conditions is deeply problematic because introducing strategic behaviour leads to a violation of any condition that makes a difference between voting rules. I also argue that it is legitimate to make interpersonal comparisons of utilities in voting theory. Combining a (...) realistic account of voters’ behaviour with a utilitarian evaluation of the outcomes then leads to the judgment that strategic voting is beneficial. If it is, then Arrow's theorem does not have far-reaching consequences for democracy because one of its conditions is not normatively acceptable. (shrink)

Arrow's Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA) has been under criticism for decades for not taking account of preference intensities. Computer-simulation results by Aki Lehtinen concerning strategic voting under various voting rules show that this intensity argument does not need to rest on mere intuition. Voters may express intensities by voting strategically, and that this has beneficial aggregate-level consequences: utilitarian efficiency is higher if voters engage in strategic behaviour than if they always vote sincerely. Strategic voting is thus unambiguously beneficial under (...) a utilitarian evaluation of outcomes. What has been considered the main argument for IIA turns out to be one against it. This paper assesses the implications of these results for interpretations of Arrow's theorem and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem in a discussion on the methodological and philosophical arguments concerning preference intensities and IIA. (shrink)

A review of Donald Katzner's book on economic modelling is provided. In addition to characterising the book, I give critical comments on the distinction between primary and secondary assumptions.

Following an established tradition, the current special issue collects five articles that originate from papers presented at the IX Conference of the International Network for Economic Method. The conference took place in Helsinki on 1–3 September 2011 and was hosted by TINT (Trends and Tensions in Intellectual Integration), University of Helsinki. The conference was successful both in terms of the number of participants and the quality of the presentations. Although the sample of papers that made it to this special issue (...) is relatively small, we think that it is representative of some of the major contemporary currents in the wider field of the philosophy and methodology of economics. The papers examine both long-debated and more recent issues. (shrink)

This paper contributes to the philosophical accounts of generalisation in formal modelling by introducing a conceptual framework that allows for recognising generalisations that are epistemically beneficial in the sense of contributing to the truth of a model result or component. The framework is useful for modellers themselves because it is shown how to recognise different kinds of generalisation on the basis of changes in model descriptions. Since epistemically beneficial generalisations usually de-idealise the model, the paper proposes a reformulation of the (...) well-known distinction between abstraction and idealisation. A reformulated notion of abstraction is needed because the extant accounts yield wrong judgments when model-modifications introduce implicit assumptions. (shrink)

We claim that the process of theoretical model refinement in economics is best characterised as robustness analysis: the systematic examination of the robustness of modelling results with respect to particular modelling assumptions. We argue that this practise has epistemic value by extending William Wimsatt's account of robustness analysis as triangulation via independent means of determination. For economists robustness analysis is a crucial methodological strategy because their models are often based on idealisations and abstractions, and it is usually difficult to tell (...) which idealisations are truly harmful. (shrink)

Aggressive behavior is instinctively driven behavior that helps animals to survive and reproduce and is closely related to multiple behavioral and physiological processes. The dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) is an evolutionarily conserved midbrain structure that regulates aggressive behavior by integrating diverse brain inputs. The DRN consists predominantly of serotonergic (5‐HT:5‐hydroxytryptamine) neurons and decreased 5‐HT activity was classically thought to increase aggression. However, recent studies challenge this 5‐HT deficiency model, revealing a more complex role for the DRN 5‐HT system in aggression. (...) Furthermore, emerging evidence has shown that non‐5‐HT populations in the DRN and specific neural circuits contribute to the escalation of aggressive behavior. This review argues that the DRN serves as a multifaceted modulator of aggression, acting not only via 5‐HT but also via other neurotransmitters and neural pathways, as well as different subsets of 5‐HT neurons. In addition, we discuss the contribution of DRN neurons in the behavioral and physiological aspects implicated in aggressive behavior, such as arousal, reward, and impulsivity, to further our understanding of DRN‐mediated aggression modulation. (shrink)