Marcel Boumans

Utrecht University, Faculty of Law, Economics and Governance, Utrecht University School of Economics, Faculty Member

Followers

109

Following

Mentions

Public Views

I am Pierson Professor History of Economics at Utrecht University. My main research focus is understanding empirical research practices from (combined) historical and philosophical perspectives. I am particularly interested in the practices of measurement and modeling and the role of mathematics in social science. These topics are covered by my most recent monograph Science Outside the Laboratory (OUP 2015). My current research project is on ‘vision and visualization,’ focused on an epistemological understanding of expert judgments.

less

Interests

Uploads

Papers by Marcel Boumans

e Lack of a Satisfactory Conceptualization of the Notion of Error in the Historiography of Science: Two Main Approaches and Shortcomings – Bart Karstens

Case 1: Kalecki’s business-cycle model

Times of Change

Download

The Computerization of Economics: Three Lessons for Economics

OEconomia, Aug 31, 2023

Consensus

Oxford University Press eBooks, Jul 1, 2015

Clinical Judgment

Oxford University Press eBooks, Jul 1, 2015

Econometrics

Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks, Jul 29, 2016

Models of clutter

In his seminal ‘Models of Data,’ Patrick Suppes [1962] proposes a ‘hierarchy of models’ to define... more In his seminal ‘Models of Data,’ Patrick Suppes [1962] proposes a ‘hierarchy of models’ to define a correspondence between abstract theories and the complex activities of conducting experiment and measurement. Although he nicely distinguishes a lowest level of ‘ceteris paribus conditions’, that is, a level of ‘noises, lighting, odors, phases of the moon,’ he does not provide a model for this level, and therefore is not able to connect this level to the upper levels. The level of ceteris paribus conditions aims at reducing clutter: to mute loud noises, to fresh the air from bad “odors”, or to re-organize the schedule for observations. These attempts to reduce clutter, that is, these cleaning activities are often the most time-consuming activities in scientific practice and require a lot of creativity and intuition. Because philosophy of science is, in my view, philosophy of science in practice, these activities deserve more attention. This article, therefore, proposes an attempt to complete Suppes’s hierarchy of models by suggesting a methodology for designing and testing ‘models of clutter’ that account for the level of ceteris paribus conditions.

Observations of an Expert

Social Science Research Network, 2009

Download

Friedman and the Cowles Commission

Oxford University Press eBooks, Jun 16, 2016

Download

Kuhn and Lakatos

Methodologies of Positive Economics

Battle in the planning office: biased experts versus normative statisticians

RePEc: Research Papers in Economics, May 1, 2007

For the purposes of calculation, context is irrelevant: one is expected to strip away the "contin... more For the purposes of calculation, context is irrelevant: one is expected to strip away the "contingent" details, slot bare numbers into the equations, and perform the relevant maths. Medical doctors must know this. So why, asked just such a question about the likelihood of a diagnostic test being accurate, do two thirds of respondents get the answer wrong? These results are usually used to demonstrate the medics' woeful comprehension of probability theory. This paper, however, argues that the results can be understood as a reminder of the importance of context to the constitution of "rationality." Reinterpreting the results in light of "ecological rationality"-which takes account of context-reveals that the problem may not be with the respondents, but with the conception of rationality as necessarily context independent. "Facts" are statements about the world for which there is consensus, and consensus will be achieved when a statement can be accepted on rational arguments. But what kind of arguments can be considered as rational? 2 1.

Download

Times of Change

Journal of the history of economic thought, Feb 2, 2024

A personal account of their experiences by Marcel Boumans and Evelyn Forget as JHET editors of is... more A personal account of their experiences by Marcel Boumans and Evelyn Forget as JHET editors of issues 31 (1) to 35 (4). When our editorial transition began in July 2008, the Journal of the History of Economic Thought (JHET) had just changed its publisher from Routledge to Cambridge University Press (CUP). Our first issue in March 2009 (volume 31, number 1) had a wonderful new cover, still in use, designed by former editor Steve Medema, that featured an extract from Adam Smith at the top fading into Alfred Marshall below. We faced two primary challenges. First, we wanted to continue on the solid editorial path that Steve Medema had laid, encouraging new contributors and new ideas to join the stalwarts of the field. And second, we faced the far less enjoyable prospect of transitioning to an electronic interface. We took on the creative aspects of editing with zeal, forming a new editorial team with H. Spencer Banzhaf as book review editor and writing an ambitious editorial inviting "submissions from a wide variety of perspectives that use a range of historical methods [and] imaginative new approaches" (Boumans and Forget 2009, p. 1). To "encourage new voices and new insights" (p. 1), we wanted to create an editorial board membership that would not only contribute to the prestige of the journal but also reflect the membership of our History of Economics Society (HES) so that prospective authors might see JHET as an appropriate outlet for their work. We tried to diversify the editorial board in terms of gender and geographic spread, although we were more successful with the latter than the former. While the board consisted of members living in the United States (five), Canada (four), the United Kingdom (four), Australia (one), France (two), Brazil (one), Germany (one), Italy (one), Japan (one), and the Netherlands (one), only one-quarter was female. We organized editorial lunch meetings at each HES

Download

Methodological ignorance: A comment on field experiments and methodological intolerance

Journal of Economic Methodology, Mar 14, 2016

Glenn Harrison [Journal of Economic Methodology, 2013, 20, 103–117] discusses four related forms ... more Glenn Harrison [Journal of Economic Methodology, 2013, 20, 103–117] discusses four related forms of methodological intolerance with respect to field experiments: field experiments should rely on some form of randomization, should be disconnected from theory, the concept of causality should only be defined in terms of observables, and the role of laboratory experiments is dismissed. As is often the case, the cause of intolerance is ignorance, as it is here. To acquire knowledge about potential influences, which we need for both the evaluation of internal and external validity of experimental results, we cannot do without theory. A purely empiricist (inductive) methodology will be unable to give us sufficient understanding of the validity of these results. An account of causality only based on directly observed things, is an account based on factual influences only. This account will be too restricted, because it will not deal with the unobserved potential influences, which we need – again – for the evaluation of the internal and external validity of the experimental results. Every investigation in a laboratory that is feasible regarding a specific potential influence may lead to deep knowledge. It is simply scientifically irrational to dismiss this kind of knowledge.

An unrepentant Lakatosian

It would be much too strong calling Mark Blaug’s overall approach a ‘research program’, neverthel... more It would be much too strong calling Mark Blaug’s overall approach a ‘research program’, nevertheless there is quite some coherence and continuity with respect to a few themes with which one could characterize his work throughout his professional life. One of these themes, ‘rigor versus relevance’, was most dominant in the last ten years of his life. So, though this theme was most prominent in the last period of his professional life, you can see – by hindsight – that it has always been one of his major concerns. Already his very first publication (1956), dealing with the empirical content of Ricardian economics, contains the key elements of the later ‘rigor versus relevance’ debate: My purpose here is to show, first of all, that the body of doctrine which Ricardo bequeathed to his followers rested on a series of definite predictions about the course of economic events which were subject to empirical verification, in the strictest sense of the term. Second, I shall try to show that the statistical data and methods of the time, crude as they may have been, were adequate to test the validity of Ricardian theory, in terms of its predictive accuracy for the class of phenomena which it was intended to explain, and, moreover, that such evidence was within the purview of all the economists of the day.

Shaping the Phenomena

Revue de philosophie économique, Oct 3, 2022

Lucas and Artificial Worlds

Social Science Research Network, Jul 15, 2009

ABSTRACT Because an economy is a complex system, economists encounter a gap between theory and ap... more ABSTRACT Because an economy is a complex system, economists encounter a gap between theory and application. To do justice to the complexity of the economy, more and more comprehensive models were built. This development was not justified by its results: more comprehensiveness did not lead to better predictions, which was seen as essential for policy evaluation. To deal with this difficulty, two strategies are possible. First, the project of builidng more and more comprehensive models may be eliminated. Second, a new criterium to assess models may be proposed, namely to verify whether they mimic the relevant characteristics of an economy. This new test criterion implies a new methodology for model building. This article explores the development of the second strategy and its methodology, which is influenced by the insights of artificial intelligence into both model building and tests.

Een lange geschiedenis van het meten van welvaart

Economisch Statistische Berichten, 2019

Download

Michael H. Turk, The Idea of History in Constructing Economics (London and New York: Routledge, 2016), pp. 242, $163 (hardcover), $54.95 (e-book). ISBN 978-1-138-80889-8 (hardcover); 978-1-315-75036-1 (e-book)

Journal of the history of economic thought, Jun 28, 2017

Backhouse, Roger e., and Philippe Fontaine, eds. 2010a.The History of the Social Sciences Since 1... more Backhouse, Roger e., and Philippe Fontaine, eds. 2010a.The History of the Social Sciences Since 1945. New York: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2010b. The Unsocial Social Science?: Economics and Neighboring Disciplines Since 1945. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Fontaine, Philippe. 2016. “other Histories of Recent economics: A survey.” History of Political Economy 48 (3): 373–421. weintraub, e. Roy. 2007. “economic science wars.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 29 (3): 267–282. weintraub, e. Roy, ed. 2003. The Future of the History of Economics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.