Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
EnglishFrançais
Economics & Philosophy Economics & Philosophy

Article contents

IDEALIZATION AND THE AIMS OF ECONOMICS: THREE CHEERS FOR INSTRUMENTALISM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2012

Julian Reiss
Julian Reiss
Affiliation:
Durham University, UKjulian.reiss@durham.ac.uk
Corresponding
E-mail address:
julian.reiss@durham.ac.uk
Get access
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper aims (a) to provide characterizations of realism and instrumentalism that are philosophically interesting and applicable to economics; and (b) to defend instrumentalism against realism as a methodological stance in economics. Starting point is the observation that ‘all models are false’, which, or so I argue, is difficult to square with the realist's aim of truth, even if the latter is understood as ‘partial’ or ‘approximate’. The three cheers in favour of instrumentalism are: (1) Once we have usefulness, truth is redundant. (2) There is something disturbing about causal structure. (3) It's better to do what one can than to chase rainbows.

Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , November 2012 , pp. 363 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.
If you should have access and can't see this content please contact technical support.

References

Alexandrova, A. and Northcott, R. 2009. Progress in economics: lessons from the spectrum auctions. In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics, ed. Kincaid, H. and Ross, D., 306–336. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. and Peijnenburg, J. 2004. Galileo and prior philosophy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 35: 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, R. 2009. Friedman's 1953 essay and the marginalist controversy. In The Methodology of Positive Economics: Reflections on the Milton Friedman Legacy, ed. Mäki, U., 217–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, M. 2003. The Formalist Revolution of the 1950s. Journal for the History of Economic Thought 25: 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokulich, A. 2011. How scientific models can explain. Synthese 180 (1): 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boland, L. 1979. A critique of Friedman's critics. Journal of Economic Literature 17: 503–522.Google Scholar
Box, G. and Draper, N. 1987. Empirical model-building and response surfaces. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. 1990. Realism, approximate truth, and philosophical method. In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science XIV, ed. Savage, W., 355–391. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1979. Causal laws and effective strategies. Noûs 13: 419–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1989. Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. 2003. Two theorems on invariance and causality. Philosophy of Science 70: 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. 2006. Where is the theory in our ‘theories’ of causality? Journal of Philosophy CIII: 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. 2009. Causality, invariance, and policy. In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics, ed. Kincaid, H. and Ross, D., 410–423. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, A. 1998. Semirealism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29:291–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakravartty, A. 2007. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakravartty, A. 2011. Scientific realism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, E. N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Colander, D., Goldberg, M., Haas, A., Juselius, K., Kirman, A., Lux, T. and Sloth, B. 2009. The financial crisis and the systemic failure of the economics profession. Critical Review 21: 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgin, M. and Sober, E. 2002. Cartwright on explanation and idealization. Erkenntnis 57: 441–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, J. 1989. Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. 1953. The Methodology of Positive Economics. Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Frigg, R. and Hartmann, S. 2006. Models in science. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, E. N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Giere, R. 1988. Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. and Selten, R., eds. 2001. Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. and the ABC Research Group 1999. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Groff, R. 2008. Revitalizing Causality: Realism About Causality in Philosophy and Social Science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Guala, F. 2005. The Methodology of Experimental Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guala, F. 2012. Are preferences for real? Choice theory, folk psychology and the hard case for commonsensible realism. In Economics for Real: Uskali Mäki and the Place of Truth in Economics, ed. Lehtinen, A., Kuorikoski, J. and Ylikoski, P.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1983. Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hands, D.W. 2003. Did Milton Friedman's methodology license the formalist revolution. Journal of Economic Methodology 10: 507–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, D. 1998. Problems with realism in economics. Economics and Philosophy 14: 185–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, J. and Vytlacil, E. 2007. Econometric evaluation of social programs, part I: Causal models, structural models and econometric policy evaluation. In Handbook of Econometrics, ed. Heckman, J. and Leamer, E.. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hendry, D. and Mizon, G. 2001. Forecasting in the Presence of Structural Breaks and Policy Regime Shifts. Economics Papers. Oxford: E. Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Hoover, K. 1995. Is macroeconomics for real? Monist 78: 235–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R.I.G. 1990. The Bohr atom, models, and realism. Philosophical Topics 18:71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, T. 2000. On the Methodology of Economics and the Formalist Revolution. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Kincaid, H. 1996. Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1989. Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In Scientific Explanation, ed Kitcher, P. and Salmon, W., 410–505. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1993. The Advancement of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J. and Ross, D. 2007. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Neutralized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, T. 1997. Economics and Reality. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, T. 2003. Reorienting Economics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lyons, T. 2005. Toward a purely axiological scientific realism. Erkenntnis 63: 167–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäki, U. 1992. On the method of isolation in economics. In Idealization IV: Structuralism, Intelligibility in Science, ed. Dilworth, C., 317–351. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Mäki, U. 2001. Explanatory unification: double and doubtful. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 31: 488–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäki, U. 2003. The Methodology of Positive Economics (1953) does not give us the methodology of positive economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 10: 495–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäki, U. 2005. Models are experiments, experiments are models. Journal of Economic Methodology 12: 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäki, U. 2005. Reglobalizing realism by going local, or (how) should formulations of scientific realism be informed about the sciences. Erkenntnis 63: 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäki, U. 2011 a. Models and the locus of their truth. Synthese 180: 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäki, U. 2011 b. Scientific realism as a challenge to economics (and vice versa). Journal of Economic Methodology 18: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marschak, J. 1953. Economic measurements for policy and prediction. In Studies in Econometric Method, ed. Hood, W. and Koopmans, T., 1–26. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. 1985. Galileian idealization. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 16: 247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menger, C. 1963. Problems of Economics and Sociology. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J.S. 1948 [1830]. Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy. London: Parker.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. and Morrison, M. 1999. Models as Mediators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myagkov, M. and Plott, C. 1997. Exchange economies and loss exposure: experiments exploring prospect theory and competitive equilibria in market environments. American Economic Review 87: 801–828.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. 1987. Truthlikeliness. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. 2002. Truthlikeliness and economic theories. In Fact and Fiction in Economics: Models, Realism and Social Construction, ed. Mäki, U., 214–228. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, L. 1980. The structure of idealization: towards a systematic interpretation of the Marxian idea of science. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Pérez-Ramos, A. 1996. Bacon's forms and the maker's knowledge. In The Cambridge Companion to Bacon, Peltonen, M., 99–120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Psillos, S. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reiss, J. 2002. Epistemic virtues and concept formation in economics. PhD Dissertation, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Reiss, J. 2008. Error in Economics: Towards a More Evidence-Based Methodology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reiss, J. 2012. The explanation paradox. Journal of Economic Methodology 19: 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, R. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ruben, D.-H. 1990. Explaining Explanation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, D. 2008. Across the Boundaries: Extrapolation in Biology and Social Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Teira, D. and Reiss, J. forthcoming. Causality, impartiality, and evidence-based policy. In Towards the Methodological Turn in the Philosophy of Science: Mechanism and Causality in Biology and Economics, ed. Chao, H.-K., Chen, S.-T. and Millstein, R.. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Urbach, P. and Gibson, J., Eds, . 1994. Francis Bacon: Novum Organum. Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Vaihinger, H. 1924. The Philosophy of ‘As If’: A System of the Theoretical, Practical and Religious Fictions of Mankind, trans. Ogden, C.K.. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, E. 2005. Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weston, T. 1992. Approximate truth and scientific realism. Philosophy of Science 59: 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, J. 2003. Making Things Happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Worrall, J. 1989. Structural realism: the best of both worlds? Dialectica 43: 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 36
Total number of PDF views: 207 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 28th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

11 Cited by
Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-kxqz4 Total loading time: 0.309 Render date: 2021-01-28T00:21:12.987Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

IDEALIZATION AND THE AIMS OF ECONOMICS: THREE CHEERS FOR INSTRUMENTALISM
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

IDEALIZATION AND THE AIMS OF ECONOMICS: THREE CHEERS FOR INSTRUMENTALISM
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

IDEALIZATION AND THE AIMS OF ECONOMICS: THREE CHEERS FOR INSTRUMENTALISM
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *