Cambridge Journal of Economics Advance Access published online on May 3, 2005
Cambridge Journal of Economics, doi:10.1093/cje/bei049
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Dublin City University, Ireland
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Acceptance of the Duhem-Quine thesis implies a recognition that empirical tests of individual hypotheses are in fact tests of individual hypotheses in conjunction with the networks from which those hypotheses are derived. This leads to a problem in the evaluation of disconfirming evidence: is it the individual hypothesis or the network that is refuted? This paper examines how financial economists deal with this joint-testing problem in their empirical evaluation of the efficient markets hypothesis. Causal holists argue that the holistic testing they espouse circumvents the difficulties surrounding joint-testing problems. This paper assesses whether a causal holist approach can resolve the ambiguity surrounding the evidence against the efficient markets hypothesis. It concludes that, without a resolution of the ontological-epistemological tension in causal holism identified by Fleetwood (Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2002, vol. 26, 27-45) and a clearer outline of the nature of holistic testing, causal holism cannot help financial economists deal with the implications of the Duhem-Quine thesis for empirical testing.
Received December 2, 2004
Article
Dealing with the Duhem-Quine thesis in financial economics: can causal holism help?
Siobhain McGovern, E-mail: siobhan.mcgovern{at}dcu.ie
![]()
Abstract ![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?