The philosophy of the analysis of complex, adaptive, and bifurcating economic systems

该研究项目旨在为分析复杂的、适应性的和分叉的经济系统(CABES)提供哲学基础。CABES分析与传统经济学(CE)的不同之处在于，它使用没有解析解的非线性方程组来研究(动态)经济系统，该系统具有由直接相互作用的异质群体组成的群体，这些群体改变自己的行为，以响应环境变化导致的系统属性的变化。虽然CE是一门古老而古老的学科，但CABES分析仍然相当年轻；它可能在20世纪80年代之前还没有出现，当时计算机模拟技术被创造出来，可以用于研究CABES的动力学。虽然至少30年来，行政长官哲学一直是一个受欢迎和勤奋的研究领域，但CABES分析的哲学几乎不存在。但是，随着越来越多的理论家呼吁范式转变，对CABES分析方法和基本概念的哲学反思变得越来越重要。特别是自2008-2009年金融危机以来，他们中的许多人声称，CABES分析在解释、预测和政策合理性方面优于CE，因此CABES分析应该在经济学课程和经济学系中得到更大的重视。但对这一主张的充分评估前提是对以下问题做出令人满意的回答：CABES分析中使用的概括如何解释？它们可以用于预测目的吗？他们是否编码了为政策决策辩护所需的因果关系声明？什么类型的因果关系在CABES中运行？虽然行政长官的哲学已经对相应的问题得出了一些令人信服的答案，但在CABES分析的哲学中仍然缺乏令人满意的答案。虽然CE的哲学已经能够对CE方法进行(并不总是恭维的)评估，但CABES分析的方法论评估还没有起步。因此，研究项目旨在通过调查CABES分析的形而上学来为这些评估做准备。然后，它将通过仔细审查一些最重要的计算模型来执行这些评估，CABE分析师使用这些模型来解释或预测CABES的特定状态，或为经济政策决策辩护。该研究项目进一步旨在分析CABES分析和基于CABES分析的政策的伦理学：CABES分析是否可能受到非认识性价值观的影响？基于CABES分析的政策的性质是什么？基于CABES分析的政策的目标应该是什么？它依赖于安全知识吗？研究项目最终将考虑在CE和CABES分析方面，我们应该是一元论者还是多元论者。

The research project aims to provide the philosophical foundations for the analysis of complex, adaptive, and bifurcating economic systems (CABESs). CABES analysis differs from conventional economics (CE) in that it uses systems of nonlinear equations without analytical solutions to study (dynamical) economic systems with heterogenous populations of directly interacting agents who modify their behavior in response to changes in systemic properties that result from changes in the environment. While CE is an old and venerable discipline, CABES analysis is still quite young; it probably has not emerged before the 1980s when the computer simulation techniques were created that can be used to study the dynamics of CABESs. And while the philosophy of CE has been a popular and industrious research area for at least 30 years, the philosophy of CABES analysis is almost nonexistent.But a philosophical reflection of the methods and basic concepts of CABES analysis becomes increasingly important, as an increasing number of theorists call for a paradigm shift. Especially since the financial crisis of 2008-2009, many of them claim that CABES analysis outperforms CE in terms of explanation, prediction, and policy justification, and that CABES analysis therefore deserves a stronger presence in economic curricula and the faculties of economics departments. But an adequate evaluation of that claim presupposes satisfying answers to questions such as the following: How do the generalizations used in CABES analysis explain? Can they be used for predictive purposes? Do they encode the causal claims required to justify policy decisions? What type of causality operates in CABESs? While the philosophy of CE has arrived at some convincing answers to corresponding questions, satisfying answers in the philosophy of CABES analysis are still missing. And while the philosophy of CE has been able to proceed to (not always flattering) evaluations of CE methods, methodological evaluations of CABES analysis do not get off the ground.The research project therefore aims to prepare the ground for these evaluations by investigating the metaphysics of CABES analysis. It will then carry out these evaluations by scrutinizing some of the most important computational models that CABES analysts use to explain or predict specific states of CABESs, or to justify economic policy decisions. The research project further aims to analyze the ethics of CABES analysis and CABES-analysis-based policy: Is CABES analysis likely to be influenced by non-epistemic values? What is the nature of CABES-analysis-based policy? What should be the goals of CABES-analysis-based policy? Does it rely on secure knowledge? The research project will finally consider whether we should be monists or pluralists with respect to CE and CABES analysis.