Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/93518
Authors: 
Albert, Max
Year of Publication: 
2013
Series/Report no.: 
Joint Discussion Paper Series in Economics 52-2013
Abstract: 
Sugden (2000) offers an answer to the question of how unrealistic models can be used to explain real-world phenomena: by considering a set of unrealistic models, one may conclude that a result common to these models also holds for a realistic model that, however, is too complex to be analyzed, or even just stated, explicitly. This is a kind of robustness argument. Sugden argues that the argument is inductive and that the methodological strategy is inconsistent with received methodological views. This paper argues that Sugden's argument is in need of improvement, that the improved version is deductive, and that the methodological strategy, if applied with care, fits well into one of the received views dismissed by Sugden, namely, hypothetico-deductivism, or the the testing view of science.
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size
270.95 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.