Are rival theories of smoking underdetermined?

Abstract

Some empirically minded philosophers of science argue that the evidence should choose the best theory from among theoretical rivals. H owever, the evidence may not speak clearly, a problem of 'underdetermination of theory by data'. We examine this problem in a concrete setting, rival theories of smoking behaviour. We investigate whether several uncontested pieces of empirical evidence allow us to choose between two competing theoretical perspectives on smoking, rational choice and non-rational choice, respectively. N ext, we develop a more re ned taxonom y of smoking theories, and consider the consequences for theory testing. F inally, we examine some normative aspects of theory choice involving the appropriate scope of government action.

Model selection and multiple research goals: The case of rational addiction

“…The empirical equivalence of the two models confirms the broader conclusion of Goldfarb et al (2001), that rational addiction and time inconsistency models are underdetermined by data.…”

“…Goldfarb et al (2001) assert that the differences between the rational choice and time inconsistency models of smoking are at present underdetermined by data: rational addiction models can be modified to predict a wide range of addictive behavior and survey responses. Becker and Mulligan (1997) present a model in which time preference is itself a choice variable; this modification makes the rational addiction model more flexible, so that apparent time inconsistency may be explained as rational choice of time preference.…”

“…6). Goldfarb et al (2001) suggest that ideological considerations may influence researchers to favor one addiction model over another. An economist who is skeptical of government competence to make social improvements over the free choices of autonomous consumers is likely to look more favorably on the principle of parsimony, and on the rational choice models it favors.…”

“…5 Gruber and Kö szegi (2004) summarize the arguments in favor of time inconsistency; Goldfarb et al (2001) argue that survey evidence, empirical tests and evidence from health studies do not clearly favor any one model. 6 Understood in this way, the assumption of time consistency is an example of negligibility assumption, as defined by Musgrave (1981).…”

Reflection on rules in science: an invisible-hand perspective

“…An inde®nite number of rival theories entailing the same empirical consequences does seem to imply underdetermination, since any actual evidence would support (or discon®rm) all rivals equally. (This paragraph and footnote is taken, somewhat altered, from Goldfarb et al 2001.) 5`Strategies' is plural by design, a recognition that empirical methods in science are heterogeneous.…”