Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

NO REVOLUTION NECESSARY: NEURAL MECHANISMS FOR ECONOMICS

NO REVOLUTION NECESSARY: NEURAL MECHANISMS FOR ECONOMICS We argue that neuroeconomics should be a mechanistic science. We defend this view as preferable both to a revolutionary perspective, according to which classical economics is eliminated in favour of neuroeconomics, and to a classical economic perspective, according to which economics is insulated from facts about psychology and neuroscience. We argue that, like other mechanistic sciences, neuroeconomics will earn its keep to the extent that it either reconfigures how economists think about decision-making or how neuroscientists think about brain mechanisms underlying behaviour. We discuss some ways that the search for mechanisms can bring about such top-down and bottom-up revision, and we consider some examples from the recent neuroeconomics literature of how varieties of progress of this sort might be achieved. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Economics & Philosophy Cambridge University Press

NO REVOLUTION NECESSARY: NEURAL MECHANISMS FOR ECONOMICS

Economics & Philosophy , Volume 24 (3): 26 – Nov 1, 2008

NO REVOLUTION NECESSARY: NEURAL MECHANISMS FOR ECONOMICS

Economics & Philosophy , Volume 24 (3): 26 – Nov 1, 2008

Abstract

We argue that neuroeconomics should be a mechanistic science. We defend this view as preferable both to a revolutionary perspective, according to which classical economics is eliminated in favour of neuroeconomics, and to a classical economic perspective, according to which economics is insulated from facts about psychology and neuroscience. We argue that, like other mechanistic sciences, neuroeconomics will earn its keep to the extent that it either reconfigures how economists think about decision-making or how neuroscientists think about brain mechanisms underlying behaviour. We discuss some ways that the search for mechanisms can bring about such top-down and bottom-up revision, and we consider some examples from the recent neuroeconomics literature of how varieties of progress of this sort might be achieved.

Loading next page...
 
/lp/cambridge-university-press/no-revolution-necessary-neural-mechanisms-for-economics-brpxtvT6Qr

References (66)

Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008
ISSN
1474-0028
eISSN
0266-2671
DOI
10.1017/S0266267108002034
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

We argue that neuroeconomics should be a mechanistic science. We defend this view as preferable both to a revolutionary perspective, according to which classical economics is eliminated in favour of neuroeconomics, and to a classical economic perspective, according to which economics is insulated from facts about psychology and neuroscience. We argue that, like other mechanistic sciences, neuroeconomics will earn its keep to the extent that it either reconfigures how economists think about decision-making or how neuroscientists think about brain mechanisms underlying behaviour. We discuss some ways that the search for mechanisms can bring about such top-down and bottom-up revision, and we consider some examples from the recent neuroeconomics literature of how varieties of progress of this sort might be achieved.

Journal

Economics & PhilosophyCambridge University Press

Published: Nov 1, 2008

There are no references for this article.