Struggling Over the Soul of Economics: Objectivity Versus Expertise

Reiss, Julian

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08551-7_7

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with the ideas embedded in the modern notion, objectivity has often been taken to have both an ontological and an epistemological aspect: an objective knowledge claim would tell about the objective world existing independently of human observers; the reality behind the phenomena we perceive (Fine [1998]; Reiss [2014]; Axtell [2016]). This duality is visible in the continental tradition, where discussions of objectivity in science have often focused on the ways in which we construct our objects of study (see e.g.…”

Section: Applicable Notions Of Objectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Defending a Risk Account of Scientific Objectivity

Koskinen¹

2020

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When discussing scientific objectivity, many philosophers of science have recently focused on accounts that can be applied in practice when assessing the objectivity of something. It has become clear that in different contexts, objectivity is realized in different ways, and the many senses of objectivity recognized in the recent literature seem to be conceptually distinct. I argue that these diverse 'applicable' senses of scientific objectivity have more in common than has thus far been recognized. I combine arguments from philosophical discussions of trust, from negative accounts of objectivity, and from the recent literature on epistemic risks. When we call X objective, we endorse it: we say that we rely on X, and that others should do so too. But the word 'objective' is reserved for a specific type of reliance: it is based on the belief that important epistemic risks arising from our imperfections as epistemic agents have been effectively averted. All the positive senses of objectivity identify either some risk of this type, or some efficient strategy for averting one or more such risks.

show abstract

Section: Applicable Notions Of Objectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Defending a Risk Account of Scientific Objectivity

Koskinen¹

2020

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As mentioned in the introductory section, there are two points of view on the Reinhart-Rogoff controversy present in the literature. On the one hand, the commentators underline the spreadsheet error and other "flaws" committed by RR and advise replicating economic research (Clemens 2015;Muslu et al 2015;Dafoe 2014;Grimson 2014;Reiss 2014;Stevenson and Wolfers 2013). On the other hand, there are voices of criticism from the perspective of the "economics of economics".…”

Section: Constructing a Causal Claimmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The case study based on the threshold hypothesis focuses on the broadly known case of the two inconsistent findings obtained by Reinhart and Rogoff (2010a) and Herndon, Ash and Pollin (2014) 2 . To the best of our knowledge, the voices committed to the methodology applied in both the journal literature (for instance Clemens 2015;Muslu et al 2015;Dafoe 2014;Grimson 2014;Reiss 2014) as well as the popular press (e.g. Stevenson and Wolfers 2013) focus on the necessity of replicating economic analyses, making databases publicly available and underline the spreadsheet error committed by RR.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It’s all in the eye of beholder

Maziarz¹

2019

Argumenta Oeconomica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article aims at delivering a fresh look at the dependency of econometric results on research methods. The author discusses the Reinhart-Rogoff controversy and the literature on expansionary fiscal contractions with a view to argue that econometricians can obtain recalcitrant (inconsistent) results despite using similar datasets. Case studies are used to show the dependence of causal claims on econometric techniques. The choice of a weighting scheme or a method identifying the timing of historical contractions determines the obtained results. Considering the strong policy-orientation of the case studies, the article delivers evidence that economic policy-making is susceptible to the research methods used for the production of evidence. This study supports the conventionalist and constructivist stance in the philosophy of econometrics.

show abstract

“…There is a tendency to assume that RCTs can establish 'what works'. However, as a number of commentators have argued elsewhere, such trials are not necessarily suited to answering the 'what works' question when applied to social policy unless a long list of qualifications is added and addressed (e.g., see Reiss, 2007Reiss, , 2014Deaton, 2009;Cartwright, 2010;Favereau, 2016;Deaton & Cartwright, 2017). As Cartwright and Hardie (2012) have pointed out, RCTs generally establish not 'what works', but only that something worked, at some place, at that time.…”

Section: Rcts Evidence and Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three challenges for behavioural science and policy: the empirical, the normative and the political

Lepenies

MacKay

Quigley

2018

Behav. Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a 'post-truth' era in which personality and opinion trump evidence and reason, the need for frankness in debates about the use and boundaries of science and policy is high. We welcome the reflective and nuanced approach to behavioural science in policy-making in Sanders, Snijders and Hallsworth's (2018) piece. Despite our support for the approach in this paper, we suggest that there are deeper issues than are currently acknowledged. Our critique tackles three issues: the empirical, the normative and the political. In the first section, we examine what counts as 'behavioural' and how this label is used to legitimate a range of policy activities. We then look at randomised controlled trials in the next section, highlighting the extra-scientific dimensions of the empirical 'What Works' revolution. Finally, we question some ontological assumptions that drive empirical research and its translation into policy, asking where the collective is to be found in behavioural public policy.

show abstract

Struggling Over the Soul of Economics: Objectivity Versus Expertise

Cited by 16 publications

References 26 publications

Defending a Risk Account of Scientific Objectivity

Defending a Risk Account of Scientific Objectivity

It’s all in the eye of beholder

Three challenges for behavioural science and policy: the empirical, the normative and the political

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About