Conferencia: Radical Pluralism (14/08/18)

Conferencia: Radical Pluralism (14/08/18)

I the most interesting cross between economics and philosophy what is epistemic pluralism in economics and how the pluralist approach approach to scientific research is a really valid one the main argument development by Incas work and in his own words it's that pluralists argue that there are multiple ways of constructing knowledge and that we cannot decide on the one best methodology or epistemic principle in short pluralistic knowledge is all there is so inko is going to present some of his findings and it's the lecture today is very basis another paper that he had a prove it by one very prestigious review George and we are expecting to to get this paper publish and then we are going to make it public so with once again in copy very welcome here at our Institute at our University and please you can begin thank you very much Monica thanks everybody for coming and giving me the opportunity to talk to you today just as a quick warning obviously my Spanish is good enough to order a beer so I'll be speaking in English I have the tendency to speak very very quickly so if you if I get too quick for you please throw something at me or you know show you show your hand and I'll try to slow down yeah so that we had agreed on something between 45 of our fifty minutes I think that for 4050 minutes okay give me more time okay so yeah the presentation I'm doing is basically part of my PhD dissertation and which I have been working on ever since and now being published it's not really published yet I'm still kind of like going back and forth with the editors on you know punctuation and stuff like this so but it's about to be published hopefully in November it's paper on choices and pluralism in economics so I'm basically trying to like talk you through the main argument of that paper and also a bit of my PhD thesis and yeah we'll see where we where we end up then I got some things to cover so we're basically talking about before I start just give you kind of like an idea where I where I'm from what we do then I do some comments on pluralism and general what is understood what's the difference between heterodox economics and pluralists economics how I define it also in my paper I will then move on to some schools of thought how they are defined and then I go straight into my topic which is choices under epistemic pluralism I will explain what I mean with epistemic epistemic pluralism then I'll go on to talk about choices and then I'll hopefully end up with giving you some idea with an example of economics because most of the talk will be more focused on philosophy of social sciences and and scientists in general but I will have like finish off with a nice example from economics and then I'll kind of like present you my main conclusions okay who are we my boss once introduced me in the following way saying that I'm either philosophizing economist or an anonymizing philosopher and I'm not quite sure either what I am but I'm a trained economist and moved into Catholic philosophy of science and philosophy of economics at the end of my masters and and then obviously in my PhD I am part of a fairly new pluralist Research Center at Anglia Ruskin University and we are a bunch of different academics from different backgrounds and not only economists we've got a couple of lawyers in there as well and people from international business and we have a right range of of topics we cover and do research on and if you ever come to Cambridge UK be more than welcome to join us in one of our seminar series and you know maybe give you give yourself a talk we always open for for new people so that's us so that's where I live basically in Cambridge at that lovely University and we have our pluralist Research Centre where we do carve like stuff I do and obviously others and we're trying to you know kind of like cultivate this pluralist idea so what is pluralism let's start with that pluralism as generally defined a consists of two parts or two arguments first of all it's the recognition of the plurality or variety of different approaches in economics and also their promotion of their legitimacy so it's not only recognition you also need to say that you know this is actually what we need and what we want right and secondly rejection mostly on the methodological level of a one-size-fits-all approach to research right so it's basically saying like we can't really do economics research with one methodology only right we need a bit more so one samuels has set has written that out basically the idea of methodological pluralism rests on the assumption that we we don't have a final methodological or epistemological principle we can follow in order to decide you know this is good economic and this isn't to a certain extent and spruce cull well earlier than that in his land breaking but beyond positivism which kind of introduced the whole argument from philosophy of science into economics and philosophy of economics summarize the same idea saying that methodological pluralism rests on the assumption that we have no single methodology or optimal methodology you know we can't make the decision and we have no logical compelling method of appraising a specific theory right this is all you know it's called like born out of the criticism of logical positivism which kind of rose at the 1960s or 70s in philosophy of science so he introduced this whole idea into economic sense they're like you know there's not just one best way we can do economic research you know because we don't have any valid methodology to actually say this is the best way to do it and you know these things don't work and so this is kind of like the basic assumption of pluralism even up today we committed this decision okay so that brings us to schools of thought you know a pluralist as well as heterodox economists always talks about schools of thought the easiest way to define it is by you on an egg roof who said that it's a group of scientists economists who basically have something in common mostly they're interested in what they're working on and so on you know the preferred methodology whatever you know so this is also the definition I used myself and I will build upon our will reintroduce it later on when I talk about schools of thought and economics i carve like use that and work my way around it so this is kind of like the idea about schools of thought it's really hard to define them you know whenever you say this is blah blah blah then we don't really you know it's really difficult to say who's actually part of that specific school of thought on who isn't based upon you know their research interest for example or their specific methodological ideas and and followings and and so on so it's kind of like a bit of a difficult thing to just define it so that's why I can't like follow the idea that they there's group of people who have something in common widest possible definition of a school of thought okay in terms of heterodox economics what is heterodox economics Tony Lawson basically says it's everybody's heterodox who disagrees with mainstream economic methodology which he defines as solely focused on mathematical modeling so if you're against math amat mathematical modeling as sole methodology you are automatically heterodox economists it's obviously you know there are heterodox economists who do mathematic methen mathematical modeling so you know it's caller-id difficult but they say rejection generally rejection of heterodox economists of the current what they call mainstream economics right textbook economics and similar approaches kind of like always emphasize the idea that they say deliberate choice and calling oneself hatrocks economists you know you're not part of the mainstream you're not doing textbook economics you're doing something different whatever it is and certain in certain points it is a rejection of mathematical modeling as well but not all heterodox economists do that what's the difference between heterodoxy and pluralism well we said pluralism acknowledged and promotes the legitimacy of basically everything which is going on in in in economics and that inc the mainstream as well the pluralist economists tend to some of them tend to say that mainstream economics as we find it today in textbooks and and and universities teaching and everything and main research approaches they do have a legitimacy as well while there are hedgehogs economists who say you know this is absolutely not working we should give it up it's useless it's not science whatsoever right so from the pluralist point of view we still acknowledge that hatch autocracy has a point and should be should be done should be taught no you know if we we're pluralist and rejected this idea then we wouldn't be really pluralist okay so schools of thought and that's basically what we have faced if we look at schools of thought in economics this is an increment completely high on Chung has written has provided like eight different ones I think eight or nine and is in his book economics a user's guide if you haven't read it you should it's really interesting but basically we are you know standing there and we face different types of schools of thought institutional economics feminist economics post-keynesian economics developmental economics Austrian economics are usually the most famous ones among heterodox economic schools of thought there are schools of thought within the mainstream so you know monetarism for example or New Keynesian scholar considered mainstream by some and the plenty of other ones you know you can also Marxist economics or whatever you can can think of so these are our schools of thought and this is kind of like where we start off and we need to accept that they all have their place in the in the economics discipline right you know there's a starting point of pluralism is to say you know they all have their legitimacy we cannot discriminate them saying one is better than the other you know we are flawless and they all live in a world of what I call under determining empiricism you know so then I'll just made up stories about life this and there's a strong empirical basis in every of these schools of thought in their what under determining pluralism is a person is what I will tell you in a minute but we have this picture where we live with a number of different schools of thought and we accept them as being valid and legitimate and we don't don't discriminate them however if we are in such a position that you know basically everything goes then we also self how do we actually may choose to follow one root over the other right how do we make choices if we cannot discriminate between two different points of views how do we choose which one we follow right and that's kind of like the ID I had halfway through my PhD thesis when I develop my research question with what you know how do you actually choices in that kind of environment and this is also basically part of or make the main question of my research paper how do we make choices if we face kind of like this pluralism and this pluralism is not only on the method of methodological level it's also goes further in my case on the epistemic level and I would argue that we also face a kind of ontological pluralism by there's a whole different story so I won't go into that okay so what is epistemic pluralism well we start off with the absence again of the final episode more logical principle I swear on Samuels have said and if we look further into the history of history of philosophy of science Thomas Kuhn has famously said that there are no neutral algorithm for theory choice you know whenever we look for methodologies to make choices you know something that tells us this is what I have to do in order to make the right choice we always end up with some kind of problem when we look at the history of history of science itself you know so there are proposed methodologies of how to choose the best in his words paradigm but if you look actually at the history of off of science we come to points where we see that these proposed methodologies don't make sense right that's a problem so he basically came he and basically most of the people and in philosophy of science come to the conclusion that there is no way we can make a final choice on you know theories methodologies and paradigms which is independent or yeah which is independent of the paradigm they're sitting in right and to add a bit more flavor hello Hillary Putin put him put him Hilary Putnam somewhere I said even if he used some kind of data you know empirical data we won't use in order to determine whether or not our paradigm is better than something else the problem is that even the data we use is perceived through the spectacle of our own paradigm right so there is again there is no neutral a historical or a theoretical point of data you know type of data or some like this we can use in order to determine what is the best paradigm over the other it's kind of like the essential idea of our paradigms that they actually tell us what they want us to think and what they want us to consider as important in terms of data you know methodological rules even ethics right so we live in that kind of like world where we don't have this situation where we can make a final decision and we live in some kind of you know yeah difficult basically so this kind of brings us to the under determining empiricism which I mentioned before says basically that if we face evidence empirical evidence there might be times where we don't have sufficient reasons to determine what we should believe about this evidence right what theory is actually correctly [Applause] interpreting this evidence we see in order to give us a story about how the world is right and that come that gives us a problem so we can face with the same type of evidence we can find different theories some of them might be incompatible and they're they're all equally good more or less good at predicting and explaining what's going on in the world and the existing evidence doesn't allow us to actually choose one over the other right so that's kinda like the problem of under determining empiricism what we faced all day not all day but sometimes and so choices among theories and even paradigms might be wholly irrational at some of the conclusions all might be political motivated so and if you want to have a non humanitarian scientific example I would give you the example of Harsha Jung who is actually the brother of hayoung Chang if you notice he wrote this really interesting book called is water h2o which gives an example of in chemistry showing you how the underlying empiricism could not be the solely basis of why we have the current model of chemistry of water and molecules and etc as the sole reason right so the evidence at that time there were two different types of theories one is what we have today Maalik molecular chemistry and the other one with phlogiston and he provides really interesting case studies and showing that the evidence the empirical evidence itself does not grant the choice of molecular chemistry over phlogiston there were more things going on more political things and so on and so forth right so the history of science has come like littered with this stuff so you know this is call that the world we live in so I basically say that we have frameworks specific M epistemic standards right epistemic pluralism basically means that we have different types of epistemic principles which are framework dependent you know so framework dependent these can be schools of thought these can be wider paradigm group like frameworks and they tell us what we have as necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge right so to give you an example of my of the standard the standard textbook principles of of epistemic principles we have fallibilism minimal realism into subjective of activity and minimal empiricism all right so fallibilism basically means that scientific statements need to be fallible you know they you need to be you need to make statements that can be wrong otherwise you don't have scientific statements right let's color the basic principles we have and most people agree to them minimal realism there must be a reality out there this which is independent of the human subject all right that doesn't necessarily mean that we have full access to it but there needs to be something that we can you know encounter and and investigate into the subject objective objectivity is very complicated but it's basically that statements about reality needs to need to be reproducible you know so whenever you make a statement a scientific statement you know do your research and so on you say something about the world then someone else needs to be in needs to be able to come to the same conclusion right that's basically it right if you don't come to that then you don't have a scientific statement all right and the final one minimal empiricism subject matters to science must be accessible for experience and observation right we cannot make scientific statements about stuff we cannot experience that we cannot observe it's a way curved links to the minimal realism as well so these are standard textbook criteria for scientific knowledge right there are others epistemic closure on the deduction for example which are more debatable whether whether or not they're necessary epistemic closure and the deduction basically means that if I know a certain thing about the world and I know that that certain thing implies something else then the question is do I know this something else automatically or not right so these are kind of like you know fancy words in epistemology and these are the question is whether or not these are principles our framework we use our paradigm or a school school of thought might actually propose an order for our research to be considered proper research under that framework right okay so that all be taken in you know the existence of different schools of thought the existence of different methodological approaches the existence of different epistemological principles kind of led me to the idea that epistemic pluralism describes the situation where we're a variety of epistemic principles exist where different frameworks different reference frameworks you know schools of thought paradigms groups stuff like this use different sets of these principles and/or give different levels of importance to them you know so you might think that okay I'm not really one of these principles is actually not as important we still accept it for our scientific knowledge but it's not necessary for us to have it right and then obviously where there is no per se ting where we don't have a single epistemological a principle which allows us to decide which which set of these principles we actually need right and from that we have so-called pluralistic knowledge emerging from that because we do use different sets of epistemological principles therefore we have different types of knowledge so that's Co like the whole or listing the whole thing the whole argument is based upon it takes a bit time I know but it's kind of yeah the necessary groundwork to to work your way through it so that brings me to the question of how do we choose between alternatives right back to the question of our schools of thought you know what how do we choose actually between these alternatives and that breaks down into first of all what are the alternatives what are schools of thought and what is choice and how do we justify choice these are the free sub questions I asked myself so what alternative schools of thought remembering the first definition I gave about you know groups who have something in common so I took this was inspired by this and then added basically Larry Lawrence work to it which he proposes so called cognitive aims and methodological norms and they were sprayed forward they basically say if you cognitive aim II you ought to do em right you know if you want to do I don't know Marxist economics then you need to do class analysis would be one possible cognitive aim plus methodological law right and I basically said okay let's think about schools of thought that way we have a set a bunch of these different cognitive aims and methodological norms and each school of thought has relatively unique sets of these schools of of these different sets of aims and norms you know it's not just one there are various different ones right so post-keynesian love uncertainty marxist love class feminists love gender you know so there at least some things where we can specifically identify cognitive aims and methodological norms among school for Ford however we can also and that makes the whole thing a bit more complicated and also shows the difficulty of understanding or specifically separating different schools of thought there are cognitive aims and methodological norms which are shared among different schools of thought right so that's why I say we have a set of different ones and these can be different you know methodological on the methodological level epistemological level ontological level you know but we have a bunch of these different sets of epistemological cognitive aims and methodological norms and some of them are so specific that we can use them in order to identify schools of thought however different schools of thought might share some of different shops some of these methodological norms aims and so on so basically I drew three circles and trying to explain what I mean with the different types of layers alright so we have Universal rational processes you know the sets of cognitive aims and methodological norms which are non Universal which are specific to schools of thought paradigm like groups which is a bit wider where schools of thought share the similar ones but we can separate them from other schools of thoughts and then the ultimate Universal group which are so Universal that we basically take them for granted and we're not really aware that we have these these ideas or these cognitive aims and methodological norms in our head right so the outer own common patterns of hypothetical reasoning means ant analysis and causal and as causal analysis and experimental reasoning are so ingrained in our own thoughts that we don't even to bait about them we don't need to talk about them right in my paper I make a less serious comparison that if you look at the financial crisis and if you look at the the total output from everybody you know independent of school of thought whether you're mainstream or heterodox everybody has a lovely explanation of what the financial crisis is what happens and so on but nobody talks about it or disputes that it is an historical event right because it's so ingrained in our conceptual schemes that this is an historical event there is quite interesting in a book form by an anthropologist named justic escapes me he went to the Amazon jungle and found the pyaara Indians I don't know if you heard about them but apparently their their language is so interesting and so different from our conceptual schemes that they don't have a concept of history right so they kind of like develop this idea that you know they they think back three days I think you said about think back three days and after that it's gone right they cannot count further than three so they say 1 2 3 and then many so this is so ingrained in their conceptual schemes that they don't have a concept of history or like a concept of history we have right so it's important to notice that these are not objective nor rational processes but they're non you know not they are universal in the sense that you know in most cultures around the planet and it's specifically in our in our scientific work we don't really question this stuff that it exists basically right ok so much about that and then if you go down to the paradigm like groupings this is kind of like where I made the distinction between heterodox and Orthodox economics you know the Orthodox the orthodoxy is kind of like this mathematical reductive methods the rationality hypothesis methodological instrumentalism individualism marginalism equilibrium hypothesis you know so if you're in the mainstream you know there's little to no criticism of the idea that equilibrium exists in the world heterodox economists disagree with that but if you look at them you know if you look at textbooks or the research you know there might be you know different types of analysis different types of modeling and so on but you know it's if you do th DSGE modeling then you have equilibrium automatically employed in your model right so nobody really discusses discuss this stuff significantly but you have disagreement among heterodox economists whether disick whether equilibria actually exists in the real world or not and as I said the final one you know Marxist class analysis asks a specific non-universal school of thought type of cognitive fame and so on and so forth right so so once we have an idea about the sets of these different cognitive aims and and methodological names on norms and different levels then choice basically means that you migrate between these different sets of norms and aims right so you can migrate between specific non-universal ones which means that you jump around between different schools of thought you know one day you're feminists the other day you're an institutionalist you can easily jump around between the middle layer it's a bit more complicated as I said a lot of heterodox economists are kind of like you know not feeling well and they talk about equilibrium but there's evidence that hat rocks economists can publish in mainstream economists journals with mainstream topics right so it's not impossible to move between these two SATs right you know one hand you disagree and you say equilibria don't exist and then you do research where you employ the equilibria exist so and you need it for you for your analysis so it's it's possible but the further you go out in the layers the more difficult it is actually to migrate between these different sets rights to the point that nobody will actually stop saying or will try to go out of the idea that causality exists because if we were to reject the idea of causality for our analysis because we want to you know kind of like move into a different set of cognitive aim there which disagrees with that then you will have quite an interesting time thinking about the world which is non Kozel non-causal which i think i I couldn't do it so you know so basically choosing between different schools of thought of chilling basically means you know running around between different sets of these aims and norms it's very easy at the level of schools of thought it becomes more difficult the further you move out which although the advantage that we don't need to necessarily justify or do any any any choices in the outer layers because you know choosing there wouldn't make sense so choices essentially are in the middle layer and the central layer that's where we where we find most choices if at all and how do we justify migration how do we you know we now know that we can choose by migrating for these different things but why should we do it right here kind of like introduce the idea of McIntyre's McIntyre in epidemiological crisises which is basically so a framework justifies itself you know why we should do X Y and that is frame rate inherent in the justification but we might face an issue a problem which creates a problem for us we are no longer able to solve with our current you know set of theories you know our methods and so on that's usually called in kuhnian terms it's a paradigm crisis here it's a pessimal logical crisis and you know we basically face a problem and we really don't know how to solve it so in order to solve it we need to discover or invent new concepts or new theories right that's basically the only way to properly deal with it is to according to MacIntyre is to invent new concepts new theories in order so we can actually solve these problems we face with our current systems and if we do invent new concepts and theories then we progress that is how we define scientific progress right only through these person the epistemological crisis is when we fight faced someone and then when we are able to develop new theories and so on then we solved the crisis and that means we progress in our scientific work right okay so we face an epistemological crisis and sometimes we find significant problems so ideally we go on and invent new problems but there are instances where we successfully avoid dealing with these problems right and some people say mainstream economists are down there right you know they put their fingers in their ears and say okay you know our DSGE models work perfectly fine you know we just add some you know I don't know externalities and all the sudden we can explain everything yeah I've been to a conference quite funny quote I've been to a conference you know everybody's like oh you know disick equilibria don't exist in the world you know all this conceptual criticism a heterodox economists there was one mainstream economists in the panel and he's like what's your problem you know just add a couple of externalities and now models are fine you know so much about that okay so yeah we try to avoid to become that we want to solve our problems however obviously the question is we don't really know when we face a significant epistemological crisis because there can be instances where we think we cannot answer that the crisis or we face a problem but after a while we actually do with the apparatus of methods and theories we have at the moment right so it's not it's a short-term cry it's not really cries a short-term problem but we can solve it a real epistemological crisis we cannot solve with the current apparatus of methodologies and theories and as long you have so but we never really know what we face at the moment so instead of reacting the simple solution is to try to force these crises whenever we can right and then see what happens so because we want to you know develop our our systems and our theories and we want to become better and everything we need to actively search and create epistemological crisises whenever we can right and the best ways to do it via different schools of thought because different schools of thought are able to create a purpose epistemological crisises for other schools of thought because they have different sets of episome illogical thoughts a different set of cognitive aims and methodological norms and they we can use them in order to create certain problems for a school of thought and then let them deal with that right and by doing so by actively forcing epistemological crisis's and different schools of thought you know having a good conversation we force them to be inventive to come up with new concepts to develop new theories and so on and so forth right the point is here is to be actively you know forcing them to do it rather than just waiting for you know a phenomena to turn up like the financial crisis you know might happen once in a while but we cannot know you don't know when and then hope for the best or we act the argument is that we actually force it to come so here's an example of colorful what I think about it or how I would say what we can do it's an illustration it's not perfect biased Karl going the way so I've been looking at the NAIRU the non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment have you heard about this wonderful so there is supposed to be a specific level of unemployment at which inflation doesn't increase or decrease right standard textbook stuff again the empirical data is car like doggy on this one because it's very much related to the Phillips curve and there are times when the Phillips curve seemed to work and there are times where the Phillips doesn't seem to work so even within the whatever school of thought you look at I got a couple of them there is disagreement among people among these authors whether or not NAIRU actually exists or not right because of the fact that the empirical data shows that sometimes the Filip code works and sometimes it doesn't and you know it's art how to actually explain what's going on there you know under determining and Pyrrhus ISM at work okay so so well obviously if you want to talk about NAIRU the first thing is to do accept that it exists you know if you don't accept that it exists and we cannot have a conversation about it and however different schools of thought in economics have different ways to explain what it actually is and they also come up with different types of policy recommendations based upon their analysis right so so we have a bunch of different ones so I based this selection and these analyses on a paper by angular sock hammer post-keynesian economists so we can look at a couple of different schools of thought so we have a monetarist it's an example example paper book Balaam Mankiw so they basically say you know NAIRU is essentially the natural rate of unemployment and you can't really do much about it you know you can't do a little bit of monetary fiscal policy and you know see what happens but the natural rate of unemployment is a structural phenomenon you know so we can't really do anything about it so yeah that's basically first of all how they analyze it you know how they see that and what they propose in terms of policy recommendations the next one is New Keynesian Krugman can't like one of them starting off from the natural rate again but you know cough like talk about you know labor market conditions welfare state might be blown up bit you know so this can call short-run disequilibrium and therefore inflation changes so their policy recommendation is get rid of inflexible labor markets right because they are the problem so do you regulate and cut the welfare state and we think we'll be fine and we find our NAIRU you know low inflation will be stable okay so that's their point of view then we have the post-keynesian who have a slightly different one so they look at it at NAIRU basically as a policy induced phenomena looking at effective demand how it determines output level and employment levels inflation is caused by distributional effects of monetary policies and so on and so forth right so a whole set of different interpretation of what is going on and then obviously the policy recommendation is different you know for active fiscal policies monetary policies and trying to you know trying to stabilize an otherwise unstable system you know so these guys are saying you know the whole system is now is kind of unstable you know market economies are unstable so let's try to you know do good policies in order to you know stabilize it as fast as we can you know the basically say you know it's stable by nature equilibria everywhere so don't play around with the policies too much or you might you know screw up a bit okay finally our most favored ones the Marxist they actually don't really have an IO theory they do some work on on inflation and they do a lot of work on on unemployment obviously looking at you know the the the labor the reserve army of labor and you know inflation and so on unemployment is kind of like you know the thought kind of a capitalist problem and so on and they basically say increase wages give more power bargaining power to wage labor and everything will be fine but they don't really have an IO theory right because they don't really work don't really have developed or play with the Phillips curve okay so these are examples of different schools of thought what they think about NAIRU where they come from and what their policy recommendations are so how do we introduce a pin missile epistemological crisis's so here are some small ones obviously monetarist New Keynesian post canyons will argue that Marxist would need to adopt at least a short run Phillips curve if they want to play with them you know if you what if your Marxist and you want to join that discussion you need at least to develop some kind of short run or need youthful short run Phillips curve in order to just to explain nayru otherwise you can't join that discussion they have whether or not they will do it as different questions but you know that's kind of like something they could bring forward you know let the mark you know here's a problem solve it deal with that right on the other hand Marxist poly would see recommendation have a normative core as we sat they look very much towards strengthening bargaining power of wage labor and that can be used to frustrate policy recommendations of others the monetarist neo and post-keynesian z– who might lack this normative form if you look if you remember actually I think the neo-keynesian said something around you know get rid of the inflexible labor market which basically means to deregulate which is opposite to what the Marxist would say you know so let them basically trash together and see what they would they come out with it's a bit more interesting yeah I said you know when you get rid of do when you try to deregulate power so you know is that actually what you want for wage-labour you know to live in a deregulated world or not you know it's a it's a normative argument it's not a method or logical but it's part of the Marxist set of names and norms right so why not throw this at others again you know they will face it and they will have to deal with them a bit more interesting in the post Keynesian policy recommendations because they do care about wage labor a bit so yeah they say you know let's use policy recommendations and use policies to create some temporary stability in the system and most of them they're normativity comes through you know egalitarian ends you know they want to create a better world so how can we use Marxist radical Marxist normativity here well one answer is to say that apparently any egalitarian end you have is inconsistent with current market-based policies because market-based policies will always cause some kind of injustice dis productive inequality and so on and so forth right so if you are if you want to propose policies with the background of you know trying to make a better world but you use market-based you know policies that might actually not work so so we can introduce these normative cognitive aims and methodological norms to existing schools of thought like post Keynesianism I don't you frustrated I'm a bit of it a little bit and see what happens right so either they are forced to strongly consider the unequal power distribution conflict you know mark Lavoie who is a post-keynesian slash Marxist already does it so he's talking actually already about you know power differences in in market and markets and so on and the distribution and FLAC distributional impact of these things these policies and if we face the egalitarian criticism then post Canadians might have to give up these egalitarian ideas we formulate them or show that market-based policies can actually serve egalitarian apps right these are two different solutions to that crisis either to show that this crisis is actually not really a crisis that you can have egalitarian ends with my you know can create a better world with market-based economic policies or not and then you have to give them up and try something else right come up with something else at least with your normative ideas okay so everything together we have a frame we have no framework independent method method metalman methodological rules for choices among you know school of thought theories concepts and so on the fourth so in the absence of that I would argue that we should look at epistemological crisis's in order to frustrate different framework dependent notice you know whatever the post-keynesian say whatever the feminists say and you know throw a little bit of problems in their way and see how they deal with that and if they can do that they will progress in their research and if they can't deal with that then we might be able to say whilst the question whether it's still worth following this type of research if it doesn't create or if it doesn't deal with the problems we throw it we can't like you know post them so basically choice the justification for choice you know for choosing between different frameworks different schools or for different the different theories come fold down to the to the idea that we need them we need to make choices in order to frustrate different frameworks which you know if they can be frustrated then and if they can deal with that then they will you know make scientific progress and that's what we need there's there's basically no better way to do it and that that is a justification for choice according to my paper ok here's a long list of references I used I send Monica a copy so if you want to have a look at the references I used here feel free to do it there's also my paper somewhere in there don't it should be published this year I hope ok so thank you very much for listening I haven't taken too much time and if you have any questions thank you thank you so much Inc oh I think it's a little bit later for that but I forgot I forgot to form a present and our lecturer so link who is currently lecturing economics and international businesses so we are not that young scholars anymore our senior lecturer in economics international business and the program leader for bachelors and economics in the Department of Economics and international business at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge UK where he mainly teaches economics and political economy of the European Union he did is his Bachelor in economics and Business Studies in German in Germany and his master's in economics in New Zealand before he completed his PhD at Anglia Ruskin University in December 2016 he is dissertation as you can see explores the philosophical concept of a criticism to develop as justification for theory method a concept of choices under the positive positive is positive istic assumptions of an absence of a final methodological of epistemic principle to determine eyes such choices in economics so now that I firmly presented our lecture I'm sorry for for that it's a little bit too late our discussion has had a personal emergency to attend so I'm I'm going to very quickly make three questions as as a behalf of comments and then we are we are open for questions from you as you can see my English is like a little bit shitty so I hope that this is a could be a motivation to you not being so shine and make your questions so my first question everything that you said and in reading you is very fascinated because it's not my main research field and the one can feel as if we are in the backstage or in the very kitchen of our professional work as economics as economists so it's like being in the backstage of the concert because we do a lot of the things that we are telling us but not in a very conscious way so thank you so much for for for bringing bringing us all of your findings in a very didactic away because it was really really the Datuk of your presentation come from something really really abstract to a much more concrete one as an example so thank you for that as well my main question my first question is it's not actually a question is more on I'd like to ask you for an extent comment on something that you develop a little bit more in your paper but not in your presentation and these I would like to hear or extend comment on the way that our science the economic science was treated before McIntyre before McIntyre argument in the was treated by researchers dedicated to sink the scientific foundations of our science mainland before all the pluralist discussion or argument and and i would like to ask a specific comment on the work of marc bloch in the attempt of frame the discussion of how we can see progress in economic science but in the framework much more related to Lakatos school peripera diagonals operation and in somehow this is mark blogs argument in d they are very specific in this room in this vocabulary of Lakatos income a way of thinking scientific progress in economics and another another discussion which is mainly the case developed by McCloskey in rhetoric and economics so this is my first question if you can make a broader comment on that my second question is a is a more provocative one in your papers you in after doing all the discussion of how to do staff justify choice and immigration of schools of thoughts and in your papers you conclude that and it's your words this paper contributes the very last slide that you show your paper this paper contributes to discussion of parolees by proposing that objective rules for choices of Jurists methods and concepts cannot be related by but instead must be base it on intersubjective consensus among participants in scientific discourse participants who may come from different frameworks so my question is could you please extend your comment mainly in highlighting the main difference what you to be this inter subjective consensus versus versus an idea of a less careful eclectic approach or le sloppy mix of concepts from originated from different schools of thought so I'm I'm trying to to make a more a more absurd line between what should be this inter subject consensus which is a result of actively forcing an epidemiological crisis as you said what is this versus a simple sloppy a classical approach mix of a whole bunch of ideas that is not that connect how can you we we divide divide and make this line more clearly more clear I think we can start with that and then take your questions yeah so I mean what I mean with the intersubjective consensus is basically that I begin my paper and my argument by saying that there is no objective rule to determine theory choice mathuroth methodological always paradigm choice and so on and then I suggest something in order to justify choices which in itself cannot be an objective rule because otherwise I would you know be in you know inconsistent with my own argument so the use of epistemological crisises is an only dear I think is worth pursuing but I am fully aware that there might be different ways of achieving you know what I want to achieve to make choices and justify choices I'm not aware of them but there might be different ones right so the idea of intersubjective consensus basically means that this rule I propose the use of Epis illogical crisises is not objective it needs to be agreed upon by everybody only if we agree all together independent of whatever framework we use you know different schools of thought then we can use them together in order to make you know to make choices but if you disagree with that then we don't have a basis to you know argue about choices then we need to find something else so so that's basically the point you know can't like a cheap excuse to to get away with my stuff saying that you know I'm not proposing an objective rule here I'm just saying you know if we agree if we can all agree upon this and you know we have something so the epistemological crisis itself can be formulated as a cognitive aim slash methodological norm as you know paradigm group like or even outer outer layer you know if we all agree that you know causation exists then we can also maybe all agree that the epistemological crisis is a good thing to use in order to you know generate progress in economic science but I'm not claiming that this is an objective or the ultimate or the best possible rule you know I'm open to more so that's basically that's basically the the the idea behind that sentence you you expressed so and that requires discussion persuasion which you know where you might actually argue that the McCloskey and you know rhetoric thing comes in because you know it's barely a case where you follow a logical argument and are not persuaded by you know rhetorics something like this so yeah it's difficult but that's basically point i'm trying to make you know it's not it's not an ejector fool i'm suggesting that's just one possible way to do it and I need agreement from others in order to you know make it work okay so much about that Khun locket Oz blog I mean there is I mean there's certain commonalities between all the work of you know Paul fire and Thomas Kuhn Imre Lakatos McIntyre and so on you know they all build upon each other and the idea that how does how does science actually work alright they want to know they want to identify how science work right so kunin carve like road first about this and introduce the idea about paradigm changes and paradigm walls and everything and then in we look at us kind of like you know came in and and and built upon that and they had actually had some some interesting discussions then Paul Phi album came in and you know took this all part and actually made quite fun of it but made a point about this and the central idea about all of them I mean they have different iterations of what they're actually saying but the central idea is the question of how does scientific research work you know how do scientists decide what is actually worth falling or the theory to follow right and what do certain philosophers inside proposed as the best method of deciding what is science and what is not science and so the logical positivists at the idea about you know XY that needs to be these are the conditions and if you follow these conditions then you have scientific theories if you do not then you know don't have scientific theories and the case studies of the research you know kun date in science and luck at us and everybody they basically provide case studies to show that these proposed rules do not apply in real scientific research you know that reasons why people follow certain scientific theories is not because you know the evidence is the best or the this theory supports is best supported by evidence and so on there are other rules or there are other things going on so yeah that's basically their point the reason why I use why I use MacIntyre is because it's specifically focused on social sciences while Lakatos and kuhn have mostly worked on on Sciences Natural Sciences and I think the parrot the paradigm concept has been fairly diluted and been overused since kun introduced ed so kuhn specifically talked about science and if you look at his work i think it's a third volume introduction he basically says like you know it works perfectly my idea about paradigms works perfectly in in science but if you look at humanities Social Sciences it doesn't work because there is no agreement whatsoever among the social scientists you know while in science you know everybody agrees in biology about evolutionary biology you know it's the theory you know cosmology same thing but if you look in in social sciences and if you look in economics you know as there is no agreement to the same degree you find in Natural Sciences and that's why Coon themselves basis a you know actually paradigm might might make not sense in in that setting by it's gotta be used anyway so yeah and I kind of like follow the idea that the paradigm concept itself I'm not quite sure if it works fully that's why I use the lowdown thing you know cognitive aims and methodological norms to define my schools of thought I think it works better thanks so much so we are open for questions anyone we avoid bias in our current world University society and even our families create and us preconceived notions how to fight these preconceived notions I get that we should force a bit epistemological crisises but how could we recognize when we are in this cage of thought and following this question is it fine to have a cognitive bias to any given school of thought as long as we're open to others by forcing epistemological crisis's first of all i mean depends on what you mean with bias by i think you you can't be unbiased right you're always in some way biased through you know your education your background you know everything place place in there so it's really hard to be fully on bias i mean you can try to do your best but you know it's difficult so it's i mean yeah you can have a preference for a specific school of thought you know i'm not arguing against that and as I said a beginning pool ism is basically just recognizing the existence of different schools of thought and promoting their legitimacy but that doesn't mean that you actually have to you know be everything I don't think it's actually possible you know because if you look at the vast work which is done in each and different school of thought you know try to get up-to-date with all the literature and post-keynesian economics and then Marxist economics and then feminist economics you know you'll be 19 you read half of it you know so yeah you know it's it's not a problem to focus on one school of thought so but yeah if you want to be applauded you basically have to be open that there's other things and that they are legitimate and that they might create epistemological crisis for you you should take them serious I guess but that's it thank you thank you I have two questions thank you that was interesting the first one which role plays scientific modeling in epistemic thoroughly with scientific modeling I refer in a philosophical way idealizations the debate on realism and naturalism the ontological commitment with a real world with a real world with replace in a plural ism because mainstream and italics economics are model based scientific knowledge or practice and the second one is about the question there are alternatives for mainstream economics what do you think about behavioral economics and that integrates psychological biological biological research evolutionary game theory creed criticized the subtle rational choice theory and that it thank okay modeling an epistemological pluralism well you have to see it from from the way that you know there are APIs a pistol more logical principles which you can use in order to say that you know modeling techniques provide you with valid scientific knowledge you know so in that sense it is it's it's legitimate to to do modeling and you know come up with statements about the world I mean that's basically what you do with it right you know you throw a model you get some data you throw it into a model you pop something out and then you know you see whether kind of makes sense or not so the epistemological pluralism behind this is is basically saying that or basically how I would understand is that you that you have if you look at the main to make economics that you have principles which allow you to you know justify that these methods using these methods actually makes sense you know and that's that's a point where we're hot dogs economists might disagree by rejecting these specific principles so yeah a second question was about well the second question about again okay behavioral economics game theory I think I mean I personally think they are really interesting the only thing I mean I'm not too much versed in to game theory to be honest last time I've seen someone presenting on game theory what the only thing I actually found a bit difficult is again they started from an equilibrium hypothesis right so I just asked them okay what if your what if there aren't any equilibria you know what if you start from disk disequilibrium position and the game is the guy basically said like up you know then my work doesn't work you know my model doesn't work I said fair enough behavioral economics you know starts off with a rationality assumption again and then you know diverges into you know what happens actually if you if you poke holes in that again the question is whether or not they can't start without that you know from a methodological point of view because I mean I'm not a trained psychologist but I know myself and my friends at least well enough to say that they are everything but rational all the time you know so but otherwise I think they create some really interesting insights behavioral economics and a different question is you know all this nudging which is going on which I have used myself on my students by the way you know it's nothing more fun to not your students but you know what's the ethical point of view you know I should you actually not or not you know choice architecture it's kind of like a difficult thing I mean cuss and Sunstein or whatever his name is he said it's everything fine you know there's no ethical implications in that bar I back to disagree I think they are serious implication then whether or not you should actively pursue choice architecture in order to you know make people kind of like not them into you know the right direction you know so but that's Carl you know that's not a methodological critique that's basically that's the normative critique again so yeah but otherwise great stuff coming out of there yeah anyone anyone else linked with what you were saying about you can study everything how hard is it coming to make specialists come and purely debate about the topics because I think your work proposes what the Academy is supposed to do discuss and it's not happening they are each in their nest yes the reality looks like this heterodox economists and mainstream economists don't talk to each other that's just a fact then I mean if you go to conferences on heterodox economies Monica and I we're at one couple of weeks ago you know they attempt to be open to what is going on but even there I think there is a tendency of group think and group building you know so everybody's welcome but if you go to the single individual streams of presentation so you know the feminist among themselves developmental economics and among themselves and then you have you know whatever and so yeah it's it's it's difficult to to maintain and I actually erase it in in in the final plenary and that conference thing you know you know don't fall into group behavior because I mean it's it's difficult because if you are bluntly honest there are some things in headstocks economics I am absolutely not interested in I find it extremely boring what these people do sorry but you know so it's hard to motivate myself to actually you know listen to them engage with them and so on you know so yeah you know that's kinda like the nature of you know yourself I would say you know you have your interests and you know but I think it's at least try to you know try to communicate everybody I mean it's like at least try to be open you know listen for like five minutes and then decide you it's boring okay so thank you so much for attending and anything or any detail of the presentation that you are interesting please write me on Mayo and you are going to to make it available to you so thank you so much have a nice evening bye bye [Applause] Oh si vamos a disappointing beliefs are in YouTube la conference center system in la brevital days ago Jaeger La Liga Divina really the condition

No Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *