Underdetermination problem in methodology of economics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18559/ref.2024.2.1902Keywords:
Duhem-Quine problem, economic methodology, methodological rationalityAbstract
This paper explores the Duhem-Quine (DQ) problem and its impact on economic methodology, focusing on how the reliance on auxiliary assumptions complicates the testing and validation of theories. The DQ problem shows that no hypothesis is tested in isolation, as it depends on additional assumptions and background knowledge, making it challenging to pinpoint where errors lie. This issue is particularly relevant in economics, where complex models and assumptions about human behavior play a significant role, and in finance, where the robustness of models is critical for decision-making under uncertainty.
The paper highlights two key gaps: (i) the limited discussion of the DQ problem in economic methodology, and (ii) the lack of alternative approaches to ensure rational methods in light of DQ. To address these issues, it proposes a multi-criterial framework for evaluating theories, emphasizing consistency, diverse data, localized testing, comparing models, and varying assumptions systematically.
Using examples like housing market models and the Ultimatum Game, the paper illustrates how addressing the DQ problem involves avoiding arbitrary changes to assumptions while adopting clear, rational strategies. By providing a stronger methodological foundation, this approach enhances the reliability of economic and financial theories, improving their influence on policy-making and practical applications.
JEL Classification
History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches (B)
Downloads
References
Arrow, K. J. (1963). Social choice and individual values. Yale University Press.
View in Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. (1974). Essays in the theory of risk-bearing. North-Holland Publishing Company.
View in Google Scholar
Bardsley, N., Cubitt, R., Loomes, G., Moffatt, P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2010). Experimental economics: Rethinking the rules. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400831432
View in Google Scholar
Boylan, T. A., & O’Gorman, P. F. (2003). Pragmatism in economic methodology: The Duhem-Quine thesis revisited. Foundations of Science, 8(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022417025502
View in Google Scholar
Cross, R. (1982). The Duhem-Quine thesis, economic methodology, and the Keynesian revolution. Journal of Economic Issues, 16(1), 119–133.
View in Google Scholar
Duhem, P. (1954). The aim and structure of physical theory. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691233857
View in Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). Verso.
View in Google Scholar
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
View in Google Scholar
Grünbaum, A. (1960). The Duhemian argument. Philosophy of Science, 27(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1086/287714
View in Google Scholar
Guala, F. (2005). The methodology of experimental economics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614651
View in Google Scholar
Hands, D. W. (2001). Reflection without rules: Economic methodology and contemporary science theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612602
View in Google Scholar
Hausman, D. M. (2007). The philosophy of economics: An anthology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819025
View in Google Scholar
Hesse, M. (1970). Duhem, Quine and a new empiricism. In G. Vesey (Ed.), Knowledge and necessity (pp. 191–209). Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-86205-4_11
View in Google Scholar
Jones, M. K. (2012). What to do with a problem like Duhem-Quine? Revue de Philosophie Économique, 13(1), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.3917/rpec.131.0079
View in Google Scholar
Jones, M. K. (2021). The concept of rationality in introductory economics textbooks. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 20(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047173421994333
View in Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76(4), 728–741.
View in Google Scholar
de Klerk, W., & Pretorius, J. (2019). Guideline for conducting critical reviews in psychology research. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 29(6), 645–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2019.1691793
View in Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Kuorikoski, J., & Marchionni, C. (2024). Economic models and their flexible interpretations: A philosophy of science perspective. Journal of Economic Methodology, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2024.2336048
View in Google Scholar
Li, C. (2020). The rationality principle as a universal grammar of economic explanations. The Journal of Philosophical Economics: Reflections on Economic and Social Issues, 13(2), 58–80. https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10735
View in Google Scholar
Mäki, U. (2013). Contested modeling: The case of economics. In U. Gähde, S. Hartmann, & J. H. Wolf (Eds.), Models, simulations, and the reduction of complexity (pp. 87–106). de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110313680.87
View in Google Scholar
Mankiw, N. G. (2008). Principles of economics (5th ed.). South-Western College Publishing. McGovern, P. (2006). Methodological issues in economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 13(1), 1–19.
View in Google Scholar
McMaster, R., & Watkins, C. (2006). Economics and the housing market: An econometric perspective. Routledge.
View in Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, J. J., & Rosato, S. (2023). How states think: The rationality of foreign policy. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300274967
View in Google Scholar
Newton-Smith, W. H. (1981). The rationality of science. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203046159
View in Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson.
View in Google Scholar
Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific realism: How science tracks truth. Routledge.
View in Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60(1), 20–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/2181906
View in Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1976). The ways of paradox and other essays. Harvard University Press. Sawyer, R. K., & Sankey, H. (1997). Underdetermination in economics: The Duhem-Quine thesis. Economics and Philosophy, 13(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267100004272
View in Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. (1977). Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6(4), 317–344.
View in Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (2008). Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason. MIT Press.
View in Google Scholar
Smith, A. (2007). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Liberty Fund.
View in Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. (1994). Economics in the laboratory. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.1.113
View in Google Scholar
Stanford, K. (2023). Underdetermination of scientific theory. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University.
View in Google Scholar
Starmer, C. (1999). Experiments in economics: Should we trust the dismal scientists in white coats? Journal of Economic Methodology, 6(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501789900000001
View in Google Scholar
Turnbull, W. (2018). Underdetermination and the philosophy of economics. Philosophy of Science Archive, 2(3), 1–20.
View in Google Scholar
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Damian Luty, Rafał Iwański
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Research Papers in Economics and Finance (REF) is committed to open access. All of the REF` s paper are free to access immediately from the date of publication. There are no author charges, known as APCs, before release, and no charge for any reader to download articles.
The Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0) applies to articles published in Research Papers in Economics and Finance from Vol. 4, No. 3, 2020 to present. This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works. You are free to share and adapt. You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
The Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC 4.0) applies to articles published in Research Papers in Economics and Finance up to Vol. 4, No. 2, 2020 inclusive. You are free to share and adapt. You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
How to Cite
EDITORIAL OFFICE: Department of Business Activity and Economic Policy, Instittue of Economics, Poznań University of Economics and Business, al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875 Poznań, Poland, room 621a Alltum, 