Book: "Good Economics for Hard Times"

INDIVIDUAL

|

INTER-PERSONAL : SCIENCES

HUMANISTIC -------------------------------------------------- MECHANISTIC

SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL

|

GROUP

	Good Economics for Hard Times Better Answers to Our Biggest Problems Abhijit V. Banerjee Esther Duflo

Hodges' model provides interdisciplinary and even transdisciplinary bridges across often disparate fields of knowledge and specialties (epistemologies). In this instance consider SOCIO-economics, the consumerism of supply and demand. The influence of this in the economics of health care and the environment. The impact of relentless growth when values are knotted with value and commodified.

Even the book's cover points to the preoccupation of economics with mechanics (process!?). The view of economies as machines, which this book and the work of the authors and others now seeks to challenge and change.


Abhijit V. Banerjee, Esther Duflo (2019) Good Economics for Hard Times, Better Answers to Our Biggest Problems, Allen Lane, ISBN: 9780241306895

My source:
Ed Conway. Fighting the fake news with hard evidence, The Times, Saturday Review. December 14, 2019, p.16.

World Philosophy Day: "Why do we need evidence of mechanisms?"

December 17th 2019, 14h30-16h00

Bordeaux Pellegrin Hospital, Rheumatology Service, 12th floor

Phyllis Illari (University College London, UK)

"Why do we need evidence of mechanisms?" A PhilInBioMed seminar

Open to all

Phyllis Illari is a Senior Lecturer at University College London (Dept of Science & Technology Studies; Faculty of Maths & Physical Sciences) in the UK. She works in the philosophy of science, with particular expertise in causality, mechanisms and information.

Abstract

I will present a view of evidence of mechanisms as evidence of the activities, entities, their organization, and the phenomena they explain, using the idea of ‘minimal mechanism’ (Glennan and Illari, 2018). I will argue that this view allows us to theoretically organize an incredibly diverse array of forms of evidence and empirical practices. I will then home in on a specific way in which evidence of mechanism is crucial, arguing that it is important even for solid evidence of correlation. Any clinical study, even a well-conducted RCT, which is still one of our best methods of establishing a reliable correlation, needs decent answers to two questions: (i) what are the variables for disease, treatment and outcome? and (ii) how and when are they measured and why?

I will use the case of ‘vitamin D deficiency’ to show how important these questions are, even when they are not explicitly addressed in published results, because they are regarded as sufficiently standardised to be unimportant. Until recently, vitamin D deficiency was regarded as well-understood, reliably measurable in standardised ways, and linked to diseases such as rickets by well understood mechanisms. However, recent research has linked vitamin D deficiency to other diseases, in ways that expose the fact that different measuring techniques measure slightly different forms of Vitamin D. Those differences are now relevant.

Considering the case shows how deeply integrative our evidential pluralism needs to be, and therefore how complex our practices of reasoning about evidence are. Philosophical accounts need to be responsive to this.

For more information click here.

Best regards,

Wiebke Bretting
--
Dr. Wiebke Bretting
Project Manager ERC IDEM
ImmunoConcEpT, UMR5164
Université de Bordeaux
146 rue Léo Saignat
33076 Bordeaux
https://www.immuconcept.org/erc-idem/

My source:
Philos-L "The Liverpool List" is run by the Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy/philos-l/