Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:10:01.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ceteris Paribus Conditions as Prior Knowledge: A View from Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Neil de Marchi  and
Jinbang Kim
Neil de Marchi
Affiliation:
Duke University
Jinbang Kim
Affiliation:
Duke University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We take it that what is intended by “laws” in the title of this session—“Confirming Ceteris Paribus Laws in the Social Sciences”—is reliable rather than fortuitous relations, that is, Millian “tendencies,” with “forcing” properties. These refer to causes which do their work whether or not interfered with, or even counteracted by, other causes. Early econometricians had this in mind when they referred to “autonomous” relations (or behavioral relations). We entirely beg the question of how we know when we are dealing with genuine causes and with the related question how we come by autonomous relations. Instead, we concentrate upon some implications of our supposing that we can identify the experimental conditions necessary to confirm the operation of whatever tendency is in question.

Another expression for these experimental conditions is the steps necessary in order to transform a theoretical model into an estimable one.

Type
Part X. Laws in the Social Sciences
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1988 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1988 , 1988 , pp. 317 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

We wish to thank participants in the PSA session at which a draft of this paper was presented for stimulating comments; and Dan Hausman and Nancy Cartwright who, perhaps unwittingly, drew us in this direction through comments they have made at widely separated times and places on things ranging from the absence of concern by the logical falsificationist Popper for what constitutes supporting evidence to the role of ceteris paribus and prior knowledge in the causal thinking of early econometricians. They bear no responsibility for the use to which we have put their ideas.

References

Haavelmo, Trygve (1944; mimeo 1941), The Probability Approach in Econometrics. Supplement to Econometrica 12, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, T.W. (1938), The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory: Reprint ed., New York: A.M. Kelley.Google Scholar
Klamer, Arjo (1984), Conversations with Economists, Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
Koopmans, Tjalling C. (ed.) (1950), Statistical Inference in Dynamic Economic Models, Cowles Commission Monographs no. 10, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Marschak, J. (1950), “Statistical Inference in Economics: An Introduction,” in Koopmans (ed.), Statistical Inference in Dynamic Economic Models, 1–50.Google Scholar
Lucas, Robert E. Jr, (1973), “Some International Evidence on Output-Inflation Tradeoffs,” American Economic Review 63, 326-34.Google Scholar
Smith, Barbara Herrnstein (1988), Contingencies of Value. Alternative Perspectives for Critical Theory, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar