if you’re looking for a school of universally Bayesian economists who employ research from cognitive science to make predictions, you won’t find them. And I don’t really know why it would matter. You won’t find many biologists using cogsci rationality either, but that doesn’t mean their research findings are false.
Sure, I don’t think a biologist studying mitochondria needs to be an expert on cogsci. Not being an expert on cogsci doesn’t make the biologist’s findings false. Similarly, it doesn’t necessarily make the economist’s findings false if she isn’t well versed in cogsci.
But the reason I’m interested in economists who know cogsci (as opposed to biologists, chemists, or physicists) is that their work directly involves human judgments and decision making under uncertainty. And isn’t the precisely what cogsci discusses? Working from a better model of how human beings reason might lead to a better model of how the economy operates. Maybe I’m wrong about that?
Ether way, I think your later point suffices to address this.
Ignore schools of thought entirely and focus on independent empirical/theoretical questions. Use your cogsci rationality skills to differentiate between good and bad arguments and to properly weigh empirical papers.
Even if economists aren’t well versed in cogsci, if they’re making any relevant mistakes, then I’ll hopefully catch them when reading.
I found your comment very helpful. Thanks!
But your following point trips me up:
Sure, I don’t think a biologist studying mitochondria needs to be an expert on cogsci. Not being an expert on cogsci doesn’t make the biologist’s findings false. Similarly, it doesn’t necessarily make the economist’s findings false if she isn’t well versed in cogsci.
But the reason I’m interested in economists who know cogsci (as opposed to biologists, chemists, or physicists) is that their work directly involves human judgments and decision making under uncertainty. And isn’t the precisely what cogsci discusses? Working from a better model of how human beings reason might lead to a better model of how the economy operates. Maybe I’m wrong about that?
Ether way, I think your later point suffices to address this.
Even if economists aren’t well versed in cogsci, if they’re making any relevant mistakes, then I’ll hopefully catch them when reading.