Abstract
Is there a unique way to de-idealize models? If not, how might the possible ways of reducing the distortion between models and reality differ from each other? Based on an empirical case study conducted in financial markets, this paper discusses how a popular valuation model (the Discounted Cash Flow model) idealizes reality and how the market participants de-idealize it in concrete market situations. In contrast to Cartwright’s view that economic models are generally over-constrained, this paper suggests that valuation models are under-constrained. This serves as the reason why the relaxation of simplifying assumptions and concretization do not work as methods of de-idealization. The paper finds that financial market participants de-idealize models using commentary that takes the form of judgment. As a conclusion, a hypothesis is formulated that proposes that the more underdetermined the model is the bigger role narrative and other pragmatic elements play in the process of model application.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexandrova A. (2008) Making models count. Philosophy of Science 75: 383–404
Alexandrova, A. (2009). What conclusions do models warrant? Paper presented at the “Models and Simulations 3” Conference, Charlottesville, USA
Arthur W. B. (1995) Complexity in economic and financial markets. Complexity 1: 20–25
Betz G. (2006) Prediction or prophecy?: The boundaries of economic foreknowledge and their socio-political consequences. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden
Boon M., Knuuttila T. (2009) Models as epistemic tools in engineering sciences: A pragmatic approach. In: Meijers A. (ed) Handbook of the philosophy of science: Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Elsevier Science, North Holland, pp 693–726
Boumans M.J. (1999) Built-in justification. In: Morgan M.S., Morrison M. (eds) Models as mediators.. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 66–96
Callon, M. (1998). Introduction: The embeddedness of economic markets in economics. In M. Callon (Ed.), The laws of the market (pp. 1–57). Oxford: Blackwell.
Cartwright N. (1989) Nature’s capacities and their measurement. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cartwright N. (1999) The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Cartwright N. (2009) If no capacities then no credible worlds But can models reveal capacities?. Erkenntnis 70: 45–58
Corbin J. M., Strauss A. L. (2008) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE, Los Angeles
Derman, E. (1996). Model risk. Quantitative strategies research notes, Goldmann Sachs. http://www.ederman.com/new/docs/gs-model_risk.pdf. Retrieved Feb 29, 2012
Hausman D. (1992) The inexact and separate science of economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hitchner J. R. (2003) Financial valuation: Application and models. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
Jones, M. (2005). Idealization and abstraction: The framework. In M. Jones & N. Cartwright (Eds.), Idealization XII: Correcting the model: Idealization and abstraction in sciences, Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities, vol. 86 (pp. 173–217). New York: Rodopi).
Knuuttila T. (2009) Isolating representations versus credible constructions? Economic modelling in theory and practice. Erkenntnis 70: 59–80
Knuuttila T. (2011) Modelling and representing: An artefactual approach to model-based representation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42: 262–271
Koller T., Goedhart M., Wessels D. (2005) Valuation: Measuring and managing the value of companies. Wiley, New York
Mackenzie D. (2003) An equation and its worlds: Bricolage, exemplars, disunity and performativity in financial economics. Social Studies of Science 33: 831–868
Mackenzie D. (2006) An engine, not a camera: How financial models shape markets. MIT Press, Cambridge
Mäki, U. (1992). On the method of isolation in economics. In C. Dilworth (Ed.), Idealization IV: Intelligibility in science, Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities, vol. 26 (pp. 319–354). New York: Rodopi).
Mäki U. (2009) MISSing the world. Models as isolations and credible surrogate systems. Erkenntnis 70: 29–43
McMullin E. (1985) Galilean idealization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16: 247–273
Montier J. (2007) Behavioural investing: A practitioner’s guide to applying behavioural finance. Wiley, Chichester
Morgan M. S. (2001) Models, stories and the economic world. Journal of Economic Methodology 8: 361–384
Morrison M., Morgan M. S. (1999) Models as mediators. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Nowak L. (1980) The structure of idealization: Towards a systematic interpretation of the Marxian idea of science. Reidel, Dordrecht
Nowak L. (1989) On the (idealizational) structure of economic theories. Erkenntnis 30: 225–246
Poitras G. (2002) The philosophy of investment: A post Keynesian perspective. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 25: 105–121
Soros G. (1998) The crisis of global capitalism: Open society endangered. Public Affairs, New York
Star S. L., Griesemer J. R. (1989) Institutional ecology, ’translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19: 387–420
Taleb N. N., Haug E. G. (2011) Option traders use (very) sophisticated heuristics, never the Black–Scholes–Merton formula. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 77: 97–106
Triana, P. (2007, January 15). Derivatives tool that renders maths irrelevant. Financial Times, p. 6.
Van Egmond S., Zeiss R. (2010) Modeling for policy: Science-based models as performative boundary objects for Dutch policy making. Science Studies 23: 58–78
Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. The Journal of Philosophy, CIV, 639–659.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Svetlova, E. De-idealization by commentary: the case of financial valuation models. Synthese 190, 321–337 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0148-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0148-1