Neuroeconomics
Tom Ford over at politics@aqute sent us all a link to a recent Wall Street Journal science column. Really interesting stuff: experimental economists in collaboration with neurophysiologists shoved subjects in an MRI scanner and asked them to make decisions about the distribution of food among children in an orphanage in Uganda. This type of research -- neuroeconmics -- is growing in popularity, as the columnist (Lee Holtz) notes. Even the Journal of Economic Literature (a very well-regarded journal) has published a survey of the field.
It is really interesting stuff and I am sure that many surprising and important insights can be gained from this sort of research. I am really impressed with the creativity and care that goes into the design of these experiments. However, these folks really could do with more and better theory. Consider a statement like the following: "...During this test, the scientists wanted to see how synapses valued fairness against the desire to avoid harming others..." Surely, we need to know just exactly what "valuing" means in this context (I was unaware that small brain structures can "value" just like whole-scale human beings) and what fairness is and how it really differs from avoiding harm to others and what it could mean to "desire" that. Also, I am at a loss to see how this particular experiment could shed any light on that questions (assuming there is a coherent question in the first place).
It is a pity that both economists and neuroscientists are reluctant to engage with philosophy at this point. Many smart (as opposed to shallow and popular) philosophers have given lots of careful thought to questions like these and others. Moral philosophers have gone to great lengths to determine the meaning of terms like 'valuing' and 'fairness'. Philosophers of mind have debated examples like these way before MRI scanning with the precision and speed that these experiments necessitate was feasible. There is a vast amount of knowledge there that is just waiting to be used. Perhaps philosophers are also to blame for this lack of exchange of ideas between these disciplines. Be that as it may: we need to get together and talk!
It is really interesting stuff and I am sure that many surprising and important insights can be gained from this sort of research. I am really impressed with the creativity and care that goes into the design of these experiments. However, these folks really could do with more and better theory. Consider a statement like the following: "...During this test, the scientists wanted to see how synapses valued fairness against the desire to avoid harming others..." Surely, we need to know just exactly what "valuing" means in this context (I was unaware that small brain structures can "value" just like whole-scale human beings) and what fairness is and how it really differs from avoiding harm to others and what it could mean to "desire" that. Also, I am at a loss to see how this particular experiment could shed any light on that questions (assuming there is a coherent question in the first place).
It is a pity that both economists and neuroscientists are reluctant to engage with philosophy at this point. Many smart (as opposed to shallow and popular) philosophers have given lots of careful thought to questions like these and others. Moral philosophers have gone to great lengths to determine the meaning of terms like 'valuing' and 'fairness'. Philosophers of mind have debated examples like these way before MRI scanning with the precision and speed that these experiments necessitate was feasible. There is a vast amount of knowledge there that is just waiting to be used. Perhaps philosophers are also to blame for this lack of exchange of ideas between these disciplines. Be that as it may: we need to get together and talk!
posted by Bruno at Monday, October 15, 2007
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home