Instrumentalism and Realism, Modern Economic Thought - Coursework Example

Economic Methodology and Science Name Institution Date Economic Methodology and Science The philosophy of science Philosophy of science has been brand as one of the strangest philosophy as it may not follow the conventional expectations of philosophy (Blaug, 1992). The philosophy involves psychological and sociological aspects that are capable of enhancing discovery in scientific related hypotheses. As one may expect, the philosophy of science may not require examination of philosophical views. The philosophy, in this case, seems to have more of logical analyzes of the official structures embedded in scientific theories. It can be argued that scientific philosophy targets to outline the excellent practices in the field of science. Whenever philosophy mentions the historical aspects of science, it is presented as classical physics in such a way that proof must be established to justify the field of science. Some articles have considered the classification in the philosophy of science as an outdated reflection that only applied to logical positivism. According to Laundreth and Colander (2001), the hypotheticodeductive model has revealed that science adopted the experimental approach to approving facts in the middle nineteenth century. Inductive inferences of ideas and theories began to be practically investigated to establish the truth. Experiments were introduced to determine the empirical consequences of all the observed facts or opinions. Some theories such as those developed by Darwin have undergone serious scrutiny as science evolved. For instance, Lamarck claims that Giraffes developed long necks due to their struggles to get food from tall trees. Some discoveries such as Mendel’s discovery of genes were a major a proven fact that nullified some previous theories about life. With such rich and ancient methodological approaches, is science relevant to economists? This paper will identify the traditional methodological approaches and explain why scientific approach can be beneficial to economists. The aspect of logical fallacy is essential when it comes to distinguishing between verifiability and falsifiability (Blaug, 1992). Theories are not meant to be blank statement intended to ignite endless thoughts in people’s minds. Theories in science have been met with a factual edge that requires people to develop a practical approach to either proof or disapprove any scientific allegations. The concept of hypothetical syllogism has also created a unique environment where science can make conclusions of a second claim by basing on an initial claim. However, the two facts must have a sense of logical connection that can clearly be established using a scientific experiment. The concept of science and philosophy has evolved to eliminate some assumptions that other disciplines like economics may be using. When dealing with logical fallacy, one must be able to distinguish between logical truth and factual truth. It may sound confusing when asked to distinguish between logical truth and factual truth since in some cases the difference may not exist. A logical truth can end up being a factual truth but at times, a logical truth may not necessarily imply a factual truth. Bardhan and Ray (2006) explain that one may logically conclude that if A is true, then C is true with the main link of such conclusions remains logic. Logic is in the mind in such a sense that what a mind may think is practical; then a person may consider it as logic. It may also be argued that logic is relative as what one person may think being logically related may not be an opinion held by someone else. Logic may vary with intelligence as well as the environment where any logical claim is developed. For instance, the logical assumptions made in the field of economics may not be considered as logical in the field of science. Economists may establish logical connections after a series of assumption during the entire process of formula derivation (Paul, 2009). On the other hand, physics may use a systematic approach to prove logical connection using figures and established methods. The same way, the logical connection in the field of biology may not be applicable in the field of physics. For this reason, it can clearly be argued that every different field of philosophy is capable of having different philosophical and logical assumptions (Blaug, 1992). These facts cannot be directly transferred for application in another area of professionalism without reasonable adjustments. A person from another field of specialization can be in a position to deny a hypothesis considering he or she has facts. For instance, vaccines in biology can logically be related to insurance in economics but form another perspective; the two may not be logically related. Arguing that the two are logically related, one may present that the two aspects are used to prevent a disaster. On the other hand, the practicality of prevention may not be logically connected as one stands out to rule a disaster from ever happening while the other only offers an option in case the disaster occurs. Vaccines prevent a disease completely while insurance provides a ‘backrest’ in the event of a disaster. The two factors can present an endless argument, which may only end once one party backs down and consider the factual explanation from the second party. According to Laguex (2008), the problem inductions have seen most of the scientific methods used to prove wrong the theories that have existed for many years. One can admit that it is only logical for a scientist to come out and demand to seek the source of certain hypothesis. At some instances, scientific discoveries have developed a category known as myths and misconception. These are facts that cannot be proven using a scientific approach and therefore cannot be considered as concepts. The context of discovery and context of justification have been used in modern science to verify theories and hypotheses. However, the main argument has always been that psychology and sociology are the mothers of any scientific discovery that exists (Chang, 2014). Methodological approaches within economics Economist has always adopted some methodological approaches to predict some trends within the society. Some of the theories used in the economy have been used and success realized while some economic theories remain mythical (Laguex, 2008). For many years, there has been a challenge to establish the linkages between anthropologists and economists. Both categories have been involved in the other at one time or another. The knowledge authority and methods used in by sophists may prevent some people from getting answers (Laundreth and Colander, 2001). Scholars have consistently argued that it is an approach, which the economist uses. It may be challenging to systematically and consciously analyze an economic situation to determine what is correct and what is not correct. The truth is that the public demands answers while other sectors such as the government and related authorities may demand responses. Authorities may turn out to be quicker in providing answers but may not be adequate to eliminate the existing logical deficiency within the society. Intentional Stance According to Laguex (2008), people have beliefs and the beliefs may vary depending on the society in which they live. The beliefs people have tended to control most parts of the lives of these people including the choices they make in life. In economic methodology, beliefs have been identified to create stance among people holding the specific beliefs. Intentional stance is one important factor that has been identified and explained by Ross when arguing out the Dennet’s notion. Dennet’s philosophy was an important philosophical component that has so far been criticized as being controversial. When people have notions, the first glance at this idea may prove to be simple as it may only entail what a particular group of people or individual frequently do and say. Some assumption in this area may be confirmed as metaphorical, and one party may not view it as the other party does (Bardhan & Ray, 2006). Metaphorical views can be perceived to have power that is more persuasive and therefore does not rule out the right to have a belief. It can never be wrong to have beliefs or aspirations, but there is something more when people portray extremely predictable intentional stance. Intentional stance made by people end up displaying their predictable traits or decision they are likely to make (Chang, 2014). The economists can claim that such useful models and theories can accurately be used to predict economic situations by predicting human behavior. When a model can be used to describe a behavioral pattern, it would be easy to link situations and reactions (Paul, 2009). However, this may not always be the case especially when the beliefs of people in a certain region vary widely. However, the aspect of degree and variation are some of the statistical approaches that have been developed to stomach the variation and develop a hypothetical measure of central tendency on human behavior. One cannot distinguish such approaches to the methods used by psychologists and anthropologists. Economic models have proved to have an aspect of studying human behavior but often generalize the society. Economists may not only use intentional stance to predict human behavior as people may tend to take design stance (Bardhan and Ray, 2006). Design stance often involves people being subjected to treatment and controls to determine which option they can take. Design stance proves to have close relationships with the scientific approach of proving facts. Subjects are exposed to treatments, and the resulting behavior is given an explanation. The interest and beliefs of people may not have so much to play in such cases as options presented as treatment may serve as a limiting factor. The approach may also not present the actual state of affair as it may only provide an explanation in cases where options are limited. The model still has to consider the fact that people are free to make decisions and can. In the real world, the economic situations cannot be entirely dictating, as people must have a way to make choices out of the primary economic environments. Bothe the models of stance can mean little to economic methodology but the most important aspect that economists look out for is the interest and beliefs (Paul, 2009). The commitment of believe and interest on something may not imply that both parties have these two features. Dennet and Ross have singled out intentional stance as the main component that can be used to predict human behavior. The model does not limit the choices people have to make and does not set conditions. The situation does not seem dictatorial, and no treatment is given to the specific subjects within the society. However, in some unique situations, people have been able to make decisions to engage in economic exchange without necessarily involving intentional stance (Bardhan and Ray, 2006). The situation does not imply the economic exchange did not take place, yet the pattern must get an explanation from an economist point of view. Perhaps such cases can be considered as outliers within the economic system and deviate away from the normal. The number of outliers may rise to a point that no real economic model or assumption can provide accurate explanations. The second thought for explanation would be to involve treatment, which may not also give correct information for explanation of specific human beliefs and desires (Boland, 2008). One major aim of economic models is to provide explanations for both buyer’s and seller’s behavior. An economists intends to establish reasons why a seller is willing to transfer ownership of a product. On the other hand, economists also seek answers as to why a buyer is willing to accept ownership of a specific commodity. In all cases, interest and belief may world together or separately depending on individuals. According to Laundreth and Colander (2001), the transfer of ownership may be prompted by the fact that interest prevails, a belief exists, or both factors exist. Human decision-making models cannot be accurately explained by the economic models thus must involve scientific models at one point or another. For instance, science can develop a means of studying human behavior that can increase predictability of human behavior. In such cases, the idea of interest and beliefs may find a totally new definition. Modern sociological and anthropological studies have adopted a scientifically based approach to explaining human behavior. The results may be complex but applicable to economists in some ways. Intentional stance has an in-depth explanation when scientific models are used to deducing the exact factors leading to particular behavior. Instrumentalism and Realism Questions can be raised concerning the endowment of a human being with full authority to make intentional stances (Bardhan and Ray, 2006). If such was to be considered, the claims of the behaviorist theory may apply in a way that subordination of the individual intentional stance would occur. The subordination would involve the socio-behavioral intentional stance, but there must be tension between the two factors. The concept of instrumentalism is meant to reduce the intentional stance that people make to a level that they can be determined using an instrument. The instrument can then provide adequate information to be used in the explanation of human behavior. The instruments are useful cases where people portray some degree of resistance to realism (Blaug, 1992). One cannot doubt the ability of the approach if considered that they have the incorporated the aspects of cultural evolution and the continuous ontological abilities vested on human beings. Realists are likely not to be instrumentalist but rather anti-instrumentalists and the same applies to the way they develop and manage behavioral stance. The realist may have an independent way of thinking that is in most cases philosophical and may deviate from the opinion held by instrumentalists. However, it would be challenging to predict the thought of realists due to the high degree of independence when it comes to making an intentional stance. This category of people develops their way of interpretation of ideas and often has unique responses. On the other side of the coin, the instrumentalists have a ‘framework’ of thought that can be assessed using some tools. These tools may be economic tools. When these tools are used to predict correctly economic situations, a poor economist may assume that the methodology is efficient (Laguex, 2008). Realism is likely to develop as technology and information get to the consumer, which may increase the number of realists. Therefore, Economic development can be argued as one important factor that can increase the number of realists within and economy. When the number of realists grows, the concept of instrumentalism may not be efficient. The modern economic thought Modernism has been crucial in changing the modern economic thought that had previously been characterized by controversial theories such as the Marxist theory (Laguex, 2008). Marxist theory can be grouped as one theory developed basing on the intentional stance of individuals in a community. The theory cannot be proven as no instrumental factor was used to establish the theory. To date, modern economic thought considers economics as a science. Previously, the science part was not considered and the burden of proof was awarded to time. Some economic thought manifested as true while some are still controversial since no such events have occurred (Paul, 2009). The modern scientific approach to the study of economics has acknowledged the fact that economics exists in societies that often exhibit complex traits. The complex traits within communities cannot be explained basing on assumption and perception but rather from informed details. The societies have to be examined scientifically to establish the existing trends that probably could provide further explanation of the types of stances discussed in previous sections. Human beings consumer goods, and the consumption patterns have proven to change with time, Science can prove such changes and offer reliable economic models as solid proof. With or without intention, human beings have dramatically created a situation where resources and commodities are considered as scarce. People have now to fight for the resources in such a way that an economic value ends up being attached to almost all resources. The modern trends have created situations where wants are unlimited amid limited resources. The concept of scarcity might not be a new economic situations but the way in which it has been handled varies from time to time in history (Boland, 2008). The changes have moved from brute force, tradition and later civilization. Civilization may seem to be the best of the three yet the most complex and at times controversial despite the term used (civilization). In civilization, the authority of allocation is vested in institutions unlike in tradition where the authority of allocation was based on traditional norms. According to Bardhan and Ray (2006), a new model of resource allocation has shifted authority of allocation from states to the market and the forces existing within the market. The final version can be used to give an exact explanation of what economics entails. It is at this level that one would realize the economic methodologies might not be entirely applicable. The market situation may prove to be very complex for mere economic assumptions and methodology to be directly applied. Several problems arise as people struggle to survive under scarce resources. The modern approach to understanding economic models must pay keen attention to processes that have completely replaced most economic situations used in the traditional economic methodology. Science is proving to be a real factor as proof is needed at every step of explanation on economic issues, situations and processes. As much as the market may turn out to be the main way in which scarce resource are currently allocated, this might not be the only existing option. The diversity of options of allocation of resources implies that economics has to be studied at different levels such as market level and state level. The modern economic model still has strong links to important social factors such as political forces. Conclusion No person can disregard the impact of the traditional economic thought on the current economic thought. However, the traditional economic thoughts may not directly apply to the modern economic systems. With time, the economics systems have proven to advance in complexity making the traditional approach unable to respond to modern economic questions. Despite the fact that most economists may undermine the capacity of scientific methods in finding answers to questions concerning economics, science remains the modern trend of establishing solutions. The modern society including economic models is more complex and requires facts to establish a reasonable explanation of behavior. As far as transfer of ownership, interest and beliefs are concerned, social sciences are adequately equipped to provide reliable responses. Economic predictions in the modern era cannot base on a mere assumption like in the age where Marx could develop a theory with no scientific proof. With science, the burden of evidence is not overwhelmed on time but rather on systematic approaches and formulae whose accuracy and precision is enhanced. References Bardhan, P., & Ray, I. (2006). Methodological Approaches in Economics and Anthropology. Retrieved from Q-Squared Working Paper No. 17: https://www.trentu.ca/ids/documents/Q2_WP17_BardhanandRay.pdf Blaug, M. (1992). The Methodology of Economics: Or, How Economists Explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boland, L. A. (2008). Economic Methodology: Theory and Practice. Retrieved from http://www.sfu.ca/~boland/methodology85.PDF Chang, H. (2014). Economics: The User's Guide: A Pelican Introduction. London: Penguin Books Limited. Laguex, M. (2008). Are we Witnessing a Revolution in Methodology of Economics? About Don Ross’s Recent Book on Microexplanation. Retrieved from Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, Volume 1, Issue 1: http://ejpe.org/pdf/1-1-art-2.pdf Laundreth, H., & Colander, D. (2001). History of Economic Thought. Retrieved from Boston: Houghton Miflin Company: http://modernecon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/history-of-thought-Final-print-book-3.pdf Paul, T. (2009). Why Cognitive Science Needs Philosophy and Vice Versa. Retrieved from Cognitive Science Society, Inc: http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/whycogsci.2009.pdf Read More