|
||||
|
Table: Terminology in positive economics |
||||
|
The essence of
scientific work The
covering law model suggests that the production of scientific theories
involves two types of work: induction and deduction. |
||||
|
Lead to. Implies Starting from
a set of observations one generates (explanans) a set of premises. More to the point, induction
is the process by which the researcher is able to generate the explanans by observation of facts. For instance, much
of the work economists devote to case studies, data collection, and
statistical analysis is part of the inductive process. Economics allows for
two kinds of induction- empirical induction and hypothetical induction: |
||||
|
|
Empirical induction
is the most demanding and scientific of the two kinds of induction. It
requires the researcher or scientist to produce as accurate an explanans as
possible. Explanans consists of 1) sentences describing fundamental behavior
or action, and 2) sentences describing the conditions under which this type
of behavior applies. As a result, a ‘well done’ empirical induction implies
making an accurate description of
the fundamental behavior, including an exact
description of the conditions limiting the domain of this behavior. The
terms; accurate and exact, should be understood relative to the facts that
are studied. In other words, empirical induction does not allow the explanans
or part of it to be without empirical content. |
|||
|
Hypothetical
induction is much less restrictive than empirical induction. It is used
as a best but inferior alternative in situations where the studied phenomena
is too complex to be formulated in terms of mathematics, and at the same time
to be a realistic representation of reality. In these situations, the
researcher is forced to trade-off less realism with more simplicity in order
to preserve the mathematical approach. This is done by hypothetical induction.
This kind of induction allows large parts of explanans to be without
empirical content, although some of it must be empirical in order to maintain
a scientific status. For instance, mathematical models in economics typically
contain a few realistic assumptions
and a bunch of simplifying
assumptions. Individually, many of these simplifying assumptions
do not appear unrealistic, but taken together it is often unrealistic to
imagine any real world situations where all the conditions are satisfied.
From a scientific point of view this is clearly non-satisfactory since it
prevents us from making statements of direct, empirical relevance.
Nevertheless, such models are worthy because of their huge indirect, empirical relevance (A link
about this is under construction). Hypothetical induction even allows the
researcher to include propositions that are counterfactual. For instance,
almost all mathematical models in economics assume that the economic players
are perfectly rational. This is wildly unrealistic from a physiological point
of view, but its inclusion is necessary for reasons of simplicity. |
||||
|
Deduction
means, lead away from, in the sense of starting from a set of premises, one
derives a conclusion. In other words deduction is the process by which the
researcher uses his knowledge about explanans to
generate explanandum. Economists typically apply
mathematical or intuitive procedures to generate the lower order behavior
(explanandum) from the fundamental (or higher order) behavior described in
explanans. Two kinds of deduction can be found in economics: logical
deduction and intuitive deduction. |
||||
|
The most scientific and classic type of deduction is logical deduction. This kind of
deduction requires the researcher to express explanans
in terms of a mathematical model, and then to derive explanandum by algebraic
manipulations of this model. The advantage of applying mathematics is to
minimize the chance of making errors and to ‘save on human rationality’. The
errors are minimized because the mathematical language is far more exact and
correct than the verbal or spoken language. Furthermore, the mathematics is
able to economize on our limited rationality, because it enables us to make
successive manipulations of formulas until a concluding formula emerge.
Concluding formulas are often non-obvious and are therefore unlikely to be
revealed by use of pure intuition. A metaphor may help to explain what is
meant: A mathematician is like a great warrior, a Samurai, who can win a war
(derive a formula) over 20 peasant warriors if he is allowed to fight them
one by one (if the mathematician is allowed to make 20 sequential algebraic
manipulations). However, the Samurai would certainly be killed if he should
fight 20 men at the same time (the mathematician would fail to derive a
formula if he was denied pen and paper on which to make successive
manipulations). |
||||
|
Sometimes it is hopeless to state the explanans
in terms of mathematics and as a result logical
(or mathematical) deduction is impossible. In this case, the best
alternative is to use intuitive
deduction. This kind of deduction implies, that the researcher uses
his common sense to figure out what
conclusions seem to be the most likely given the available formulation of
explanans. Relative to algebraic manipulations, intuition or common sense is
a very subjective and erroneous kind of deduction, and from a scientific
point of view this is a huge problem. However, it is still far better than
having no theories at all to explain a phenomenon. |
||||
|
The basis of a
scientific theory: From
the point of view of positive science the basis of a scientific theory is 1) the facts / reality it is
supposed to describe, 2) the explanans or the premises of the theory, and 3) the explanandum or the
conclusions of the theory: |
||||
|
Scientific theory is always
inspired and based on observations of reality, because it is reality that any
scientific theory tries to describe or disclose. Both the explanans
and the explanandum of a theory should be related
to facts or reality. However, in economics it is especially important that
the explanandum (the predictions of the theory) are confirmed by facts /
reality. This is one of the key messages by Friedman's [1953] influential
paper on the methodology of positive economics. Indeed, this paper argues
that as long as explanandum is confirmed by facts a simple but unrealistic
formulation of explanans may be preferred to a realistic but complex
formulation of explanans. The corporate governance encyclopedia refers to
such theory as predictional theory because
it focuses on the ability of theories to predict. Machlup [1955] takes
another point of view and argues that both the explanans and the explanandum
should resemble reality even if it comes at the price of scarifying
simplicity. Such theory is referred to as explanatory
theory in this encyclopedia because it stresses the importance of
credible explanations (explanans) to observable phenomenon. |
||||
|
The
explanans is the premises of a theory, or “the class of those sentences
which are adduced to account for the phenomenon”, Hempel and Oppenheim [1948,
p. 321]. To be more specific, explanans is composed of two kinds of
sentences: 1) sentences or formulas describing some kind of fundamental
behavior or action, and 2) sentences describing the conditions under which
this kind of behavior applies. In economics an example of fundamental
behavior could be utility maximization or risk aversion, and examples of
conditions could be asymmetric information or monopoly. Explanans is also
sometimes described as 'that with which we explain'. |
||||
|
The
explanandum is the conclusion
of a theory, or “the sentence describing the phenomenon to be explained (not
that phenomenon itself)”, Hempel and Oppenheim [1948, p. 321]. We may also
say that explanandum is an expression of behavior, but of a lower order than
the behavior in explanans Braithwaite [1953, page 12] states it elegantly:
“The propositions in a deductive system may be considered as being arranged
in an order of levels, the hypotheses at the highest levels being those which
occur only as premises in the system, those at the lowest level being those
which occur only as conclusions in the system, and those at the intermediate
levels being those which occur as conclusions from deductions of higher-level
hypotheses and which serve as premises for deductions of lower-level
hypotheses”. Click
here to see an exhibition on the many lower level hypotheses in corporate
governance. Explanandum is also sometimes described as 'that which should
be explained'. |
||||
|
The three
archetypes of scientific theories This
encyclopedia distinguish between three archetypes of scientific theories: 1) Explanatory theory as
suggested by Machlup [1955]. 2) Predictional theory as suggested by Friedman [1953]. 3) Exemplary theory that combines
the most scientific attributes of theory production. |
||||
|
Explanatory theory that uses empirical induction and intuitive deduction. This is theory that
tries to establish as realistic an explanans as possible, but because of this
realism the explanans is too complex to be formulated mathematically and the
explanandum is therefore derived by intuitive means. Coase, Hayek, and Simon
are some of the less numerous Nobel Laureates that are honored for theories
of the explanatory kind. The name of explanatory
theory is due to the theory’s prime interest in the explanans of a theory,
and the function of explanans is clearly to explain explanandum. |
||||
|
Predictional
theory uses hypothetical induction
and logical deduction. This is theory that
includes a number of highly unrealistic but simplifying assumptions. As a
result of this simplification the explanandum is capable of being deduced
mathematically. Mirrless, Modigliani, and Sharpe are just a few of the many
Nobel Laureates in economics that are awarded for this kind of theories. Predictional theory is called so, because its main
interest is the explanandum of a theory, and this is predictional in the
sense that explanandum is an induced type of behavior, i.e. in principle it
is not known in advance. |
||||
|
Exemplary theory refers to theory that uses empirical induction and logical deduction. This is theory that not only
is advantaged by having a highly realistic explanans but also benefits from
being able to deduce its explanandum by mathematical means. Unfortunately,
this kind of theory is practically impossible in the social sciences (a link
to a thorough discussions of the reasons will be added soon). However, in the
natural sciences exemplary theory is the most common way of doing science. |
||||
|
- Copyright 1997-2008, ViamInvest. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Legal notice. |
||||
.