[ Mariusz Maziarz (2020), The Philosophy of Causality in Economics: Causal Inferences and Policy Proposals (Routledge), pp. 11-51. ]
2.1 Reducing causality to constant conjunctions
2.1.1 From constant conjunctions to the regularity view of laws
2.1.2 Further developments
2.1.3 Criticism and rejection of the regularity view
2.1.4 The regularity approach in the philosophy of economics
2.2 Establishing constant regularities
2.2.1 Econometric research
2.2.2 Cliometrics
2.2.3 Other methods
2.3 Policymaking on the basis of regularities
2.3.1 Cliometric results and (failed) interventions
2.3.2 Is theory-driven econometrics more reliable?
2.4 You shall not translate causal claims
2.1 Reducing causality to constant conjunctions
- '인과성에 대한 규칙성 접근'은 흄까지 거슬러 올라감
- 네 가지 유형
(1) 인과성은 두 사건의 항상적 결합으로 이해됨
(2) '필연적 연결'을 예화하는 경험적 규칙성으로 인과성을 정의함.
(3) 원인은 차이를 만드는 요소이거나 INUS 조건들로 정의됨/
(4) 논리실증주의적 환원주의에 따르면, 자연 법칙에서 appearances를 넘어서는 것은 없음.
- 구성
2.1절: 네 가지가 '규칙성 접근'에 속한다
2.2절: 어떻게 경제학자들이 경험적 규칙성들을 포괄하지 않았는지
2.3절: 정책결정에 이러한 증거들을 어떻게 사용할지
2.1.1 From constant conjunctions to the regularity view of laws
2.1.2 Further developments
2.1.3 Criticism and rejection of the regularity view
2.1.4 The regularity approach in the philosophy of economics
2.2 Establishing constant regularities
2.2.1 Econometric research
2.2.2 Cliometrics
2.2.3 Other methods
2.3 Policymaking on the basis of regularities
2.3.1 Cliometric results and (failed) interventions
2.3.2 Is theory-driven econometrics more reliable?
2.4 You shall not translate causal claims
(2023.11.23.)
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기