Uncertainty is a feeling of anxiety and a part of culture since the dawn of civilization. Civilizations have invented numerous ways to cope with uncertainty, statistics is one of those technologies. The rhetoric as the discourse of investment theory uncovers that the theory of statistics applied is a blind spot in the current conversation about investment theory and practice. Probability and prediction in investment theory look like a tying sale, since investment theory is founded on stochastical predictability. The proof of (...) unpredictability, however, lies outside the paradigm of statistics, because statistics assumes that the substrate, that produces probability outcomes, is stable. The theory of objective probabilities founds the Capital Asset Pricing Model but does not stochastically predict, and neither do Markowitz’s subjective probabilities for his portfolio theory. Statistical models for investing have a function, despite that they cannot predict: in essence, the models try to quantify statistically the equity, the fairness of the distribution of risk and return between parties involved. In the dissertation, a lot of ideas to change finance have had attention: the alternative statistical theory of Mandelbrot, bubble theory, political finance, the analysis of rhetoric, the analysis of culture, innovative practices, ethics in the form of virtue and value ethics, and the history of finance. How to make the culture of finance more heterogeneous? That starts with awareness of the current problems, the introduction of multiform metaphors for investment theory, and handling the ambiguity of theory uncertainty, by presenting, explaining and elaborating the alternatives. (shrink)

Several game-theoretical lab experiments helped establish the belief that economists are more selfish than non-economists. Since differences in behaviour between experiment participants who are students of economics and those who are not may be observed among junior students as well, it is nowadays widely believed that the origin of the greater selfishness is not the training they undergo, but self-selection. In other words, selfish people voluntarily enrol in economics. Yet, I argue that such explanation is unsatisfactory for several reasons. I (...) also suggest alternative explanations for the observed differences, which have been so far unduly disregarded. (shrink)

My philosophical intuitions are those of a scientific realist. In addition to being realist in its philosophical outlook, my philosophy of economics also aspires to be realistic in the sense of being descriptively adequate, or at least normatively non-utopian, about economics as a scientific discipline. The special challenge my philosophy of economics must meet is to provide a scientific realist account that is realistic of a discipline that deals with a complex subject matter and operates with highly unrealistic models. Unrealisticness (...) in economic models must not constitute an obstacle to realism about those models. What follows is a selective and somewhat abstract summary of my thinking about economics, outlined from two perspectives: first historical and autobiographical, then systematic and comparative. The first angle helps understand motives and trajectories of ideas against their backgrounds in intellectual history. My story turns out to have both unique and generalizable aspects. The second approach outlines some of the key concepts and arguments as well as their interrelations in my philosophy of economics, with occasional comparisons to other views. More space will be devoted to this second perspective than to the first. (shrink)

For much economics research, ethics committee approval is not required. This is seen by some as indicating that there are no ethical issues in economics research. However, ethical research requires more than simply meeting regulatory requirements. If economics research has an impact on perceptions and resulting decisions, then there may be concerns about the nature of the research and its impact. There are a number of arguments that could be raised as to why economics does not describe the real world. (...) What we see is shaped by how we see, so it is important to consider context. This paper considers the simplification that is an inevitable aspect of research. Implications for economic approaches are described, recognising that criticisms can apply to heterodox as well as mainstream approaches. Subjectivity is then discussed, questioning the traditional positive-normative distinction. An additional section relates to the application of economics. It focuses on the significance of rhetoric and the differing roles played by economists, each of which may have their own obligations and expectations. A theme throughout the paper is that of groups and group membership shaping perceptions and behaviour. The paper concludes that there are ethical issues in relation to both how and why economists undertake their work. Read the Open Peer Discussion on this paper » Read the discussion of this paper on the WEA's Ethics conference ». (shrink)

The literature in economic methodology has witnessed an increase in the number of studies which, drawing upon the postmodern turn in social sciences, pay serious attention to the non-epistemological-discursive elements of economic theorizing. This recent work on the "economic discourse" has thus added a new dimension to economic methodology by analyzing various discursive aspects of the construction of scientific meanings in economics. Taking a similar stance, this paper explores Michel Foucault's archaeological analysis of scientific discourses. It aims to show that (...) his archaeological reading of the history of economic thought provides an articulate non-epistemological framework for the analysis of the discursive elements in the history of economics and contemporary economic theorizing. (shrink)

Bryan Caplan’s bold and challenging argument is weak on evidence and uses questionable assumptions. He does not prove that politicians go along with voters’ biases, nor that these biases make voters feel good, nor that they cling to these biases tenaciously. And he assumes that the public’s disagreements with professional American economists are “biases” in the sense of being incorrect, even though economists often disagree with each other, and economists in other countries may disagree even with the consensus views of (...) American economists. (shrink)