Comments and Questions

Assessment of Ron Wallace’s paper “Addressing the malaise …” Wolfram Elsner, University of Bremen, Germany • The paper is relevant, topical and appealing, with its starting point and motive to deal with the “malaise in neoclassical economics”.• The paper is also well written and easy to understand (at the verbal level). (On formalisms below.)• The paper is short as well, so some space left for some amendment through particular extensions (as suggested below).• The “message” of the paper is that a certain approach, which did have some success in cell biology, can be transferred and applied in economics as well: A “partial modeling” using Boolean Networks (BN) analysis, which are somewhat reduced forms of more complex cardinally based (non-discrete/continuous; and usually agent-based) models often used in model simulation.• BN analysis would then ideally provide some progress in discriminating among different theories and more complex models by better bridging or mediating verbal theory, modeling, and reality. • The ideal thus would be some inductive “proof” of a theory or discrimination among theories. • The approach therefore appears as some heuristic for scientific progress in economics.• BN have been developed and applied with considerable success in gene and cell biology, biophysics, and biochemistry modeling. Stuart Kauffman’s work is a major instance here, which has spread indeed from genetic biology into all modern complexity sciences and their SNAs. • But there is doubt, whether it was directly applied to test among rival theories even there. • Even more so, the paper would need to reflect, whether the discriminatory capacity of such approach can be equally applied in a social science like economics, where the mere basis of measurement and statistical-econometric analysis already is much more contested that in physics.• The author therefore, should address the debate about the inductive ideal of “falsification” in general epistemology, but also in individual sciences as economics. (I am not suggesting, that the author naively adheres to some outdated falsification ideal.)• A broader epistemological issue which appears the paper has to deal with to justify its message, is the approach to scientific paradigms (in the traditions of Kuhn and Lakatos). If a contested discipline such as economics consists of competing paradigms, then there is Kuhnian incommensurability (and even relative losses) among paradigmatic theories and schools (one of them may explain something that the other one cannot equally well, and v.v.). Against this background, it seems even less feasible to generate fine-grained model comparison and discrimination. • For instance, would adherents of (relatively simpler) models with predetermined equilibrium (paths), assumptions of high (perhaps perfect global) rationality, and clear optimality/welfare benchmarks really be convinced by partial modeling proofs of the existence of a “better” explanation (of what?), a more real-world explanation, a more complex explanation? • Finally, the reader would be able to assess the value added of the paper much better, if it got somewhat more formal, by illustrating a case more formal. This should be done basically in section 2 or in the application case of HFT in section 3 (which I assume starts on p.9). (Rather than becoming more specific and formal, the paper seems to undergo some repetition and meandering on pp 9-11.) • The conclusion appears rather short and lean, which often is most enjoyable to the reader, in this case, however, appears as somewhat of an inhibit of some broader final considerations. In all, I have learned a lot by the paper that was really inspiring and informative re. the possible transfer of biophysical methods into economics. But the paper needs to be made “round” by addressing the above mentioned epistemological issues and provide some formal example.