Abstract
The recognition of the influence of theory on data selection and interpretation has led to the widely accepted notion that the content, formulation, and methodology of scientific theories largely depends on a metaphysical worldview. This chapter draws from Craig Dilworth’s thesis (The metaphysics of science. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006) on the physicalist (and consequently materialist) metaphysical commitments of contemporary science to show how this link is present in the neurosciences, economics, and neuroeconomics. However, these sciences are still somewhat lodged between an acceptance of an absolutely physicalist view of reality and the defense of the existence of realities beyond matter. The physicalist worldview translates in the sciences into a predominant scientific positivism shyly resisted by neurosciences and economics. In fact, neuroeconomics’ parent theory—behavioral economics—seeks to explain the empirical anomalies of positivist standard economic theories by exploring beyond openly manifested data. However, the fledgling science of neuroeconomics claims to have found the root of these anomalies in an even more materialistic internal place: neural interactions. As a result, the materialistic explanation is all but reinforced. In neuroeconomics, the physicalist worldview has prevailed over the openness to other realities, but, even so, some opposing voices can still be heard.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Duhem P. Physical theory and experiment. In: Cover JA, Curd M, editors. Philosophy of science: the central issues. New York: W. W. Norton; 1998. p. 257–79. From Pierre Duhem, The aim and structure of physical theory (transl. P. P. Wiener) Princeton University Press; 1954; original: La théorie physique. Son object et sa structure, Paris: Chevalier et Rivière; 1906. http://www.ac-nancy-metz.fr/enseign/philo/textesph/duhem_theorie_physique.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2014.
Popper KR. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge; [1934] 2000 (Logik der Forschung, translated by the author).
Quine WVO. Two dogmas of empiricism. Philos Rev. 1951;60(1):20–43.
Gadamer HG. Truth and method, second revised edition. New York: Continuum; [1960] 1996.
Hanson NR. Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1958.
Heidelberger M. Theory-ladenness and scientific instruments in experimentation. In: Radder H, editor. The philosophy of scientific experimentation. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press; 2003. p. 138–51.
Van Fraasen B. The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1980.
Bogen J. Theory and observation in science. In: Zalta E, editor. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. 2013. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation/. Accessed 28 June 2014.
Reiss J. What’s wrong with our theories of evidence? Theoria. 2014;80(2):283–306.
Ladyman J. Understanding philosophy of science. London: Routledge; 2002.
Dilworth C. The metaphysics of science. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Springer; 2006.
Agazzi E. Science and metaphysics: two kinds of knowledge. Epistemologia. 1988;11(11):11–28.
Nagatsu M. Function and mechanism. The metaphysics of neuroeconomics. J Econ Meth. 2010;17(2):197–205.
Schouten M, Looren de Jong H. Mind matters: the roots of reductionism. In: Schouten M, Looren de Jong H, editors. The matter of the mind. Oxford: Blackwell; 2007. p. 1–28.
Chalmers D. The conscious mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
Bickle J, Mandik P, Landreth A. The philosophy of neuroscience. In: Zalta E, editor. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. 2012. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neuroscience/. Accessed 30 June 2014.
Bennett M, Hacker P. Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. Oxford: Blackwell; 2003.
Aristotle. On the soul (Loeb Classical), trans. W. S. Hett. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1957.
Kenny A. The homunculus fallacy. In: Grene M, editor. Interpretations of life and mind: essays around the problem of reduction. London: Routledge; 1971. p. 65–74.
Wittgenstein L. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell; [1958] 1986.
Wimsatt W. Reductionism and its heuristics: making methodological reductionism honest. Synthese. 2006;151(3):445–75.
Senior NW. Statistical science. In: Smyth RL, editor. Essays in economic method. London: Gerald Duckworth; [1860] 1962. p. 19–24.
Hutchison TW. Introduction. In: Smyth RL, editor. Essays in economic method. London: Gerald Duckworth; 1962. p. 9–18.
Robbins L. Essay on the nature and significance of economic science. London: Macmillan; 1935.
Menger C. Investigations into the method of the social sciences with special reference to economics, Ed. Louis Schneider, Transl. Francis Cook. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute; [1883] 1985 (Untersuchungenüber die Methode der Socialwissenschaften und der PolitischenOekonomieinsbesondere, Leipzig: Ducker &Humblot).
Samuelson PA. A note on the pure theory of consumer’s behaviour. Economica. 1938;5(17):61–71.
Samuelson PA. Consumption theory in terms of revealed preference. Economica. 1948;15(60):243–53.
Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1944.
Savage LJ. The foundation of statistics. New York: Dover; [1954] 1972.
Martins N. Can neuroscience inform economics? Rationality, emotions and preference formation. Camb J Econ. 2011;35(2):251–67.
Samuelson PA. The foundations of economic analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1947.
Sen A. Rationality and freedom. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 2002.
Sen A. Choice, welfare and measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1982.
Fumagalli R. The disunity of neuroeconomics: a methodological appraisal. J Econ Meth. 2010;17(2):119–31.
Marchionni C, Vromen J. Neuroeconomics: hype or hope? J Econ Meth. 2010;17(2):103–6.
Marchionni C, Vromen J. Neuroeconomics: hype or hope? London: Routledge; 2012.
Harrison GW, Ross D. The methodologies of neuroeconomics. J Econ Meth. 2010;17(2):185–96.
Glimcher PW, Camerer C, Fehr E, Poldrack R. Neuroeconomics: decision making and the brain. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008.
Camerer C, Lowenstein C, Prelec D. How neuroeconomics can inform economics. J Econ Lit. 2005;43(1):9–64.
Ross D. Economic theory and cognitive science: microexplanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT; 2005.
Ross D. Two styles of neuroeconomics. Econ Philos. 2008;24(3):473–83.
Graziano M. Epistemology of decision. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013.
Gul F, Pesendorfer W. The case for mindless economics. In: Caplin A, Schotter A, editors. The foundations of positive and normative economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 3–39.
Levine DK. Neuroeconomics? Int Rev Econ. 2011;58(3):287–305.
Fumagalli R. The futile search for true utility. Econ Philos. 2013;29(3):325–47.
McMaster R. Neuroeconomics: a skeptical view. Real World Econ Rev. 2011;58:113–25.
Fehr E, Rangel A. Neuroeconomic foundations of economic choice—recent advances. J Econ Perspect. 2011;25(4):3–30.
Antonietti A. Do neurobiological data help us to understand economic decisions better? J Econ Meth. 2008;17(2):207–18.
Kuorikoski J, Ylikoski P. Explanatory relevance across disciplinary boundaries: the case of neuroeconomics. J Econ Meth. 2010;17(2):219–28.
Muramatsu R. The possibilities of neuroeconomics: an account through the lens of economic methodology. In: Marqués G, editor. [Rationality, economics and interdisciplinary. Spanish]. Buenos Aires: CIECE (FCE-UBA); 2009. p. 249–98.
Harrison GW. Neuroeconomics: a critical consideration. Econ Philos. 2008;24(3):303–44.
Crespo RF, Mesurado B. Happiness economics, eudaimonia and positive psychology: from happiness economics to flourishing economics. J Happiness Stud. 2014. doi:10.1007/s10902-014-9541-4.
Büchner F. [Body and spirit in modern medicine. Spanish] Cuerpo y espíritu en la medicina actual. Madrid: Rialp (VomgeistegenStandort der modernen Medizin. Freiburg: Hans Ferdinand Schulz Verlag); [1957] 1969.
Craver CF, Alexandrova A. No revolution necessary: neural mechanisms for economics. Econ Philos. 2008;29(3):381–406.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Crespo, R.F. (2015). Neurosciences, Neuroeconomics, and Metaphysics. In: Gargiulo, P., Arroyo, H. (eds) Psychiatry and Neuroscience Update. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17103-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17103-6_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17102-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17103-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)