 Controversies around neuroeconomics: Empirical, methodological and philosophical issuesPost-Print from HAL Abstract: By the late 1990s, several converging trends in economics, psychology, and neuroscience had set the stage for the birth of a new scientific field known as "neuroeconomics". As with any emerging discipline – consider for example mathematical economics, econometrics or experimental economics at different times – neuroeconomics is rather controversial with economists. It raises a large number of empirical, methodological and philosophical questions resulting in debates and controversies that this article reviews and discusses by addressing three major issues concerning the contribution made so far to knowledge: Is it reliable? Is it scientifically legitimate? Is it useful for economists? Without claiming to be exhaustive, this analytical framework enables understanding of the thrust of the major criticisms of neuroeconomics. At the same time, the paper sheds light on the nature of the responses likely to be provided in view of the conceptual and empirical progresses made in the field since its emergence and considering the turn identified in the agenda of neuroeconomics over the last decade. Keywords: Neuroeconomics; Decision-making; Economic methodology; Philosophy of science; Neuroéconomie; prise de décision; méthodologie économique; philosophie des sciences (search for similar items in EconPapers) Published in Revue de Philosophie Economique / Review of Economic Philosophy, inPress, 22 (2) There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it. Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03214904 Access Statistics for this paper More papers in Post-Print from HAL |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.