Learning from Minimal Economic Models

Grüne‐Yanoff, Till

doi:10.1007/s10670-008-9138-6

Cited by 109 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…17 See Hartmann ([1998]), Grüne-Yanoff ([2009]). 18 We again point to the existence of admirable work of Kuhlmann [2006Kuhlmann [ , 2014, Rickles [2007Rickles [ , 2008 and Casini ([2014]) focusing upon financial econophysics.…”

Section: Acknowledgementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling Inequality

Thébault

Bradley

Reutlinger

2018

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Econophysics is a new and exciting cross-disciplinary research field that applies models and modelling techniques from statistical physics to economic systems. It is not, however, without its critics: prominent figures in more mainstream economic theory have criticised some elements of the methodology of econophysics. One of the main lines of criticism concerns the nature of the modelling assumptions and idealisations involved, and a particular target are 'kinetic exchange' approaches used to model the emergence of inequality within the distribution of individual monetary income. This paper will consider such models in detail, and assess the warrant of the criticisms drawing upon the philosophical literature on modelling and idealisation. Our aim is to provide the first steps towards informed mediation of this important and interesting interdisciplinary debate, and our hope is to offer guidance with regard to both the practice of modelling inequality, and the inequality of modelling practice.

show abstract

Section: Acknowledgementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling Inequality

Thébault

Bradley

Reutlinger

2018

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…How could it be explanatory despite its seeming dissimilarity to everything we know about the formation of ethnically segregated neighborhoods? Recently, a number of philosophers of economics have tried to answer these questions (Cartwright 2009;de Donato and Zamora-Bonilla 2009;Grüne-Yanoff 2009;Knuuttila 2009;Kuorikoski and Lehtinen 2009;Mäki 2009;Sugden 2009). These papers mostly focus on the relation between a model (e.g., the checkerboard model) and its supposed target.…”

Section: Schelling's Checkerboardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding with theoretical models

Ylikoski

Aydınonat

2014

Journal of Economic Methodology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the epistemic import of highly abstract and simplified theoretical models using Thomas Schelling's checkerboard model as an example. We argue that the epistemic contribution of theoretical models can be better understood in the context of a cluster of models relevant to the explanatory task at hand. The central claim of the paper is that theoretical models make better sense in the context of the menu of possible explanations. In order to justify this claim, we introduce a distinction between causal scenarios and causal mechanism schemes.These conceptual tools help us to articulate the basis for modelers' intuitive confidence that their models make an important epistemic contribution. By focusing on the role of the menu of possible explanations in the evaluation of explanatory hypotheses, it is possible to understand how a causal mechanism scheme can improve our explanatory understanding even in cases where it does not describe the actual cause of a particular phenomenon. Highly abstract and simplified theoretical models have an important role in many sciences, for example, in evolutionary biology and economics. Although both scientists and philosophers have expressed doubts about the epistemic import of these idealized models, many scientists believe that they provide explanatory insight into real-world phenomena. Understanding the epistemic value of these abstract representations is one of the key challenges for philosophers of science who attempt to make sense of scientific modeling. In this paper we will examine ThomasSchelling's checkerboard model as an example of abstract theoretical models and articulate various ways in which it expands the social scientific understanding of segregation processes.We argue that the epistemic contribution of theoretical models can only be fully understood in the context of a cluster of models relevant to the explanatory task at hand. To disambiguate this claim, we introduce a distinction between two different cluster claims. The first, the family of models thesis, states that the epistemic value of theoretical models is not well understood if they are treated as isolated representations. It makes more sense when considered in the context of as a family of related models. Our second cluster claim, the competing causal mechanisms thesis, says that the full epistemic contribution of theoretical models can only be understood in the context of competing explanations for the same phenomenon. In other words, theoretical models make better sense in the context of the menu of possible explanations.The structure of the paper is as follows. In the first section, we start by making some observations about Schelling's famous checkerboard model and introduce our two cluster theses in the second section. In order to understand our second thesis, which brings up the contribution of the menu of possible explanations, it is necessary to understand the nature of how-possibly explanations (HPEs). Thus, in the third section, we introduce an enriched account of HPEs ...

show abstract

“…Research on computer games suggests verisimilitude is an important feature in appealing to players (for example, see Schultze and Rennecker, 2007). Gruene-Yanoff (2009) suggests credibility of theories is also important. Klamer and Colander (1987) suggest that students find relevance of theory to be important to them; and that economics graduate students found the irrelevance of much Economic theory disengaging (see also Johnston, et al, 2000).…”

Section: Some Educational Arguments For Pluralismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Pluralism in Economics Education Make Better Educated, Happier Students? A Qualitative Analysis

Mearman¹,

Wakeley²,

Shoib³

et al. 2011

International Review of Economics Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper contributes to the debate on pluralism in the economics curriculum. Here pluralism means a diversity of theoretical perspectives. One set of pedagogical arguments for pluralism are those found in 'liberal' philosophy of education. To this end, the first part of the paper presents arguments for pluralism based on 'liberal' pedagogical arguments. The paper also notes more instrumental arguments for pluralism and the barriers to such an approach. Finally, the paper considers new primary evidence from focus groups on student perceptions of economics. This evidence shows support for the arguments that a pluralist curriculum is popular and develops cognitive capacities of criticism, comparison and analysis -exactly those argued for in (liberal) pedagogical discussion -as well as judgement, understanding and writing skills. However, pluralism as a teaching strategy may be more difficult for those delivering it.

show abstract

Learning from Minimal Economic Models

Cited by 109 publications

References 31 publications

Modelling Inequality

Modelling Inequality

Understanding with theoretical models

Does Pluralism in Economics Education Make Better Educated, Happier Students? A Qualitative Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About