Journals / Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy / 2020 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 4

Moels and Explanations in Economy

Ekonomide Modeller ve Açıklamalar

Pages
1571–1596
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Accordingly, in this article, by taking into consideration the views currently on offer regarding the economic models, my purpose is to show that when focusing the economist’s practice, it could be seen that economic models at least sometimes can provide us with actual explanations and these explana-tions differ from those found in other disciplines, not in kind but degree.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article examines the nature and status of explanations provided by economics.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In predicting and providing explanations, economists basically make use of models.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Accordingly, in this article, by taking into consideration the views currently on offer regarding the economic models, my purpose is to show that when focusing the economist’s practice, it could be seen that economic models at least sometimes can provide us with actual explanations and these explana-tions differ from those found in other disciplines, not in kind but degree.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This article examines the nature and status of explanations provided by economics. In predicting and providing explanations, economists basically make use of models. Although models can be thought of as physical representa-tions such as the Phillips Machine, more often than not they are taken to be graphics, diagrams, and mathematical equations. Frequently economists use mathematical models. Apart from their heuristic, cognitive, and pragmatical roles, models loom large in providing explanations in many of the scientific practices. Accordingly, in this article, by taking into consideration the views currently on offer regarding the economic models, my purpose is to show that when focusing the economist’s practice, it could be seen that economic models at least sometimes can provide us with actual explanations and these explana-tions differ from those found in other disciplines, not in kind but degree.

Özet

Bu makale ekonomideki açıklamaların doğasını ve statüsünü ele almaktadır. Ekonomistler açıklama verirken ve öndeyide bulunurken temel olarak ekono-mik modelleri kullanırlar. Modeller Phillips makinesi gibi fiziksel temsiller şek-linde olabileceği gibi, çoğunlukla grafikler, diagramlar, matematiksel denklem-ler olarak ele alınırlar. Ekonomistlerin sıklıkla kullandığı modeller ise matema-tiksel olanlardır. Höristik, bilişsel, pragmatik rollerinin yanında açıklama verme işinde de modeller birçok farklı bilim pratiğinde yer tutmaya başlamıştır. Bu bağlamda bu makalade ekonomik açıklamalar, ekonomik modeller ve ekonomik modellerin doğasına ilişkin literatürde yer alan görüşleri inceleyerek ekonomist-lerin pratiğine odaklanıldığında ekonomik modellerin de fiili nedensel açıklama-lar verebildikleri ve ekonomideki açıklamaların diğer disiplinlerdeki açıklama-lardan tür değil derece olarak farklılaştıklarını göstermeyi amaçlıyorum.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇEVİK, A. D. (2020). Moels and Explanations in Economy. Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 4, 1571–1596. https://ajindex.com/articles/353130

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Alexandrova, A. & Northcott, R. (2013). It’s Just a Feeling: Why Economic Mo-dels Do Not Explain. Journal of Economic Methodology, 20 (3), 262-267.
  2. Alexandrova, A. (2006). Connecting Models to the Real World: Game Theory in Action. (PhD Thesis). San Diego: University of California. Alexandrova, A. (2008). Making Models Count. Philosophy of Science, 75 (3), 383-404.
  3. Aydınonat, N. E. & Köksal, E. (2019). Explanatory Value in Context: The Curious Case of Hotelling’s Location Model. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 26 (1), 1-31.
  4. Aydınonat, N. E. (2007).
  5. Models, Conjectures and Exploration: An Analysis of Schelling's Checkerboard Model of Residential Segregation. Journal of Eco-nomic Methodology, 14 (4), 429-454.
  6. Begg, D. & Vernasca, G. & Fischer, S. & Dornbusch, R. (2011). Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bokulich, A. (2014). How the Tiger Bush Got Its Stripes: ‘How Possibly’ vs. ‘How Actually’ Model Explanations. The Monist, 97 (3), 321-338.
  7. Boland, L. A (1989). The Methodology of Economic Model Building. London and New York: Routledge. Brandon, R. N. (1990). Adaptation and Environment. Princeton: Princeton Univer-sity Press.
  8. Cartwright, N. (1989). Nature’s Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford: Claren-don Press.
  9. Cartwright, N. (1998). Capacities. The Handbook of Economic Methodology. (Eds. J. B. Davis, D. W. Hands & U. Mäki). Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar, 45-48.
  10. Cartwright, N. (1999). The Vanity of Rigour in Economics: Theoretical Models and Galilean Experiments. Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science. Discussion Paper Series, 43/99. Cartwright, N. (2009). If No Capacities Then No Credible Worlds, but Can Models Reveal Capacities? Erkenntnis, 70 (1), 45-58.
  11. Craver, C. F. (2006). When Mechanistic Models Explain. Synthese, 153 (3), 355-376.
  12. Cuffaro, M. E. (2015). How-Possibly Explanations in (Quantum) Computer Science. Philosophy of Science, 82 (5), 737-748.
  13. Elgin, M. (2003). Biology and A Priori Laws. Philosophy of Science, 70 (5), 1380-1389.
  14. Forber, P. (2010). Confirmation and Explaining How Possible. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 41, 32-40.
  15. Gibbard, A. Varian Hal.R. (1978). Economic Models. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 75, 664-677.
  16. Giere, R. N. (1999). Science Without Laws. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2009). Learning from Minimal Economic Models. Erkenntnis, 70 (1), 81-99. Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2011). Isolation Is Not Characteristic of