Rotterdam_edited.jpg
ECONOMICS
What is the proper relationship between economics and psychology? Would economics better achieve its aims if it were to use concepts, theories, and evidence from neuroscience, cognitive science, or commonsense psychology? The mentalist tradition says yes, and behavioural tradition says no.
To make sense of the debate over the relationship between economics and psychology, I argue that one needs to distinguish the ultimate aims of economics as discipline (on the one hand) from the best means of pursuing those aims (on the other hand).
 
 
 
 
Behavioural Approach to Ultimate Aims
I defend "revealed preference theory" by defending the idea that economics does not ultimately aim to study agents' psychology:
Preferences and Positivism in Economics (Philosophy of Science, 2016)
 
 
 
 
Mentalist Approach to Means
Nevertheless, it's possible in principle that studying neuroscience and cognitive science may be a reasonable means of pursuing economics ultimate aims, even though those aims are not psychological:
Neuroeconomics and Confirmaton Theory (Philosophy of Science, 2014)
 
 
 
 
Problems for Functionalism
At any rate, I think there is something unhelpful about how this controversy is typically framed. This is because the key notions in the controversy "psychological state" and even "choice behaviour" are ambiguous. On this basis I argue that the distinction between the mentalist and behavioural traditions is very blurry. Also, on this basis, I point out a dilemma for "functionalist" varieties of mentalism.
Functionalism and the Role of Psychology in Economics (Journal of Economic Methodology, 2020)(