Synthese

, Volume 191, Issue 11, pp 2499–2511 | Cite as

To specialize or to innovate? An internalist account of pluralistic ignorance in economics

Article
  • 208 Downloads

Abstract

Academic and corporate research departments alike face a crucial dilemma: to exploit known frameworks or to explore new ones; to specialize or to innovate? Here I show that these two conflicting epistemic desiderata are sufficient to explain pluralistic ignorance and its boom-and-bust-like dynamics, exemplified in the collapse of the efficient markets hypothesis as a modern risk management paradigm in 2007. The internalist nature of this result, together with its robustness, suggests that pluralistic ignorance is an inherent feature rather than a threat to the rationality of epistemic communities.

Keywords

Pluralistic ignorance Exploitation Exploration  Thomas Kuhn Scientific revolutions Economics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the participants of the 4th Copenhagen Lund Workshop in Social Epistemology for comments and discussion. In particular he would like to thank its organizer Frank Zenker for many helpful comments and suggestions during the editorial process.

References

  1. Bernanke, B. (2004). The great moderation. Speech delivered in the capacity of Governor of the Federal Reserve at the meetings of the Eastern Economic Association, February 20, 2004. http://www.federalreserve.gov/Boarddocs/Speeches/2004/20040220/.
  2. Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Carnap, R. (1950). Logical foundations of probability. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Centola, D., Willer, R., & Macy, M. (2005). The emperor’s dilemma: A computational model of self-enforcing norms. American Journal of Sociology, 110(4), 1009–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Greenspan, A. (2008). Testimony before the house of representatives. Testimony in the capacity of Chairman of the Federal Reserve Speech before the House of Representatives, October 23, 2008. http://oversight-archive.waxman.house.gov/documents/20081023100438.pdf.
  6. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Lucas, R. (2003). Macroeconomic priorities. Presidential address to the American Economic Association, January 4, 2003. http://bit.ly/1h6EYK0.
  8. Miller, D., & McFarland, C. (1991). When social comparison goes awry: The case of pluralistic ignorance. In J. Suls & T. Wills (eds) Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 287–313). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. O’Gorman, H. (1986). The discovery of pluralistic ignorance: An ironic lesson. Journal of the Historic and Behavioral Sciences, 22(4), 333–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Smith, A. (2003). Wealth of nations. New York: Bantam Classics (1776).Google Scholar
  11. Solow, R. (1988). Private correspondence. Correspondence between Alan Kirman and Robert Solow, April 1988. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/events/ccbs_cew2010/presentation_kirman.pdf.
  12. Strevens, M. (2003). The role of the priority rule in science. Journal of Philosophy, 100(2), 55–79.Google Scholar
  13. Turner, A. (2010). Economics, conventional wisdom and public policy. Speech delivered in the capacity of Head of the U.K. Financial Services Authority to the Inaugural Conference of the Institute of New Economic Thinking, April 9, 2010. http://bit.ly/IjxXXc.
  14. Wray, B. (2011). Kuhn’s evolutionary social epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tilburg Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science (TiLPS)Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations