PHD THESIS SUMMARY: Causal reasoning in economics: a selective exploration of semantic, epistemic and dynamical aspects

Many broad questions of high philosophical interest about causal reasoning in economics remain poorly answered. First, what are the meanings of causal claims? This is a semantic question. Second, how can a causal claim be adequately supported by evidence? This is an epistemological question. Third, how are causal beliefs affected by new information? This is a question about belief dynamics. This thesis uses a combination of case-based research and conceptual analysis to address these questions. 1 The case study used throughout the thesis is economic research on the causes of unemployment. It is mainly by studying this scientific practice that I come to formulate and defend answers to the three questions stated above. I do not claim that these answers are universal—they most probably do not apply to all instances of causal reasoning. But they do contribute to a better understanding of causal reasoning in economics and beyond. In part I, the semantic part (co-written with Luis Mireles-Flores), we investigate the meaning of causal generalizations in the economics of unemployment. We argue that the standard approach to meaning is misguided in identifying the referential relation as being what constitutes meaning. To make sense of the widespread practice of demanding and supplying causal generalizations in disciplines like economics, we need an approach to meaning which prioritizes the inferential relation over the referential relation. We contribute to the development of this alternative approach to meaning by distinguishing different types of inferential relations which together constitute the meaning of an expression.