Why We Cannot Learn from Minimal Models

Fumagalli, Roberto

doi:10.1007/s10670-015-9749-7

Cited by 26 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, many theoretical models could be characterised as minimal models in the sense just described. However, Fumagalli (2016a) has recently argued against the possibility of actually learning anything from such minimal models.…”

Section: Modelling and Explanation In Economicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent Trends in Economic Methodology: A Literature Review

Mireles-Flores

2018

Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay is a review of the recent literature on the methodology of economics, with a focus on three broad trends that have defined the core lines of research within the discipline during the last two decades. These trends are: (a) the philosophical analysis of economic modelling and economic explanation; (b) the epistemology of causal inference, evidence diversity and evidence-based policy and (c) the investigation of the methodological underpinnings and public policy implications of behavioural economics. The final output is inevitably not exhaustive, yet it aims at offering a fair taste of some of the most representative questions in the field on which many philosophers, methodologists and social scientists have recently been placing a great deal of intellectual effort. The topics and references compiled in this review should serve at least as safe introductions to some of the central research questions in the philosophy and methodology of economics.

show abstract

Section: Modelling and Explanation In Economicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent Trends in Economic Methodology: A Literature Review

Mireles-Flores

2018

Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, the representational relationship has not yet been established, and hence we do not know whether the model is explanatory or not. The problem with the first interpretation is that if there were no representational relationship between the model and the real world it would be unclear how the model could teach us anything at all about a real-world target (Fumagalli 2016). In other words, if Schelling's model does not represent any feature of actual patterns of segregation, how could it produce a justifiable change in confidence regarding the necessary causes of real-world segregation?…”

Section: Schelling's Model Of Segregationmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the Problem with Model-based Explanation in Economics?

Marchionni

2017

Disputatio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question of whether the idealized models of theoretical economics are explanatory has been the subject of intense philosophical debate. It is sometimes presupposed that either a model provides the actual explanation or it does not provide an explanation at all. Yet, two sets of issues are relevant to the evaluation of model-based explanation: what conditions should a model satisfy in order to count as explanatory and does the model satisfy those conditions. My aim in this paper is to unpack this distinction and show that separating the first set of issues from the second is crucial to an accurate diagnosis of the distinctive challenges that economic models pose. Along the way I sketch a view of model-based explanation in economics that focuses on the role that non-empirical and empirical strategies play in increasing confidence in the adequacy of a given model-based explanation.

show abstract

“… See Forber ([2010]),Cuffaro ([2015]), andFumagalli ([2015]) for a sophisticated discussion of various readings of how-possibly explanations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fumagalli ([2015], Sect. 4.3) defends the claim that (autonomous) toy models can play a heuristic role for constructing how-actually models only if modelers include veridical "additional information or presuppositions" concerning the target system.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding (with) Toy Models

Reutlinger

Hangleiter

Hartmann

2018

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Toy models are highly idealized and extremely simple models. Although they are omnipresent across scientific disciplines, toy models are a surprisingly under-appreciated subject in the philosophy of science. The main philosophical puzzle regarding toy models is that it is an unsettled question what the epistemic goal of toy modeling is. One promising proposal for answering this question is the claim that the epistemic goal of toy models is to provide individual scientists with understanding. The aim of this paper is to precisely articulate and to defend this claim. In particular, we will distinguish between autonomous and embedded toy models, and, then, argue that important examples of autonomous toy models are sometimes best interpreted to provide how-possibly understanding, while embedded toy models yield how-actually understanding, if certain conditions are satisfied. Contents 4 Two Kinds of Understanding With Toy Models 4.1 Embedded toy models and how-actually understanding. .. .. .. 4.2 Against a how-actually interpretation of all autonomous toy models 4.3 The how-possibly interpretation of some autonomous toy models. .

show abstract

Why We Cannot Learn from Minimal Models

Cited by 26 publications

References 61 publications

Recent Trends in Economic Methodology: A Literature Review

Recent Trends in Economic Methodology: A Literature Review

What is the Problem with Model-based Explanation in Economics?

Understanding (with) Toy Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About