Rogier De Langhe
My academic degrees in economics and philosophy culminated in a Ph.D. on the use of models in economics. A year into this research the financial crisis began. The drastic shift in the questions economists were asking and the standards they upheld made a deep and lasting impression. “The whole intellectual edifice collapsed in the summer of last year," testified Alan Greenspan in 2008. I began studying the dynamics of science rather than continuing the traditional focus on a static analysis of the finished products of science: how to deal with disagreement (Peer Disagreement under Multiple Epistemic Systems, To Specialize or to Innovate? An Internalist Account of Pluralistic Ignorance) and pluralism (How Monist is Heterodoxy?, Why Should I Adopt Pluralism?, ), how to balance dynamically the virtues of precision and generality (Does Generality Lead to Simplicity in Ecology?, Mainstream Economics: Searching Where the Light Is), how to divide cognitive labor (A Unified Model of the Division of Cognitive Labor, Standards and the Distribution of Cognitive Labour, The Division of Labour in Science: the Tradeoff between Specialisation and Diversity). Dynamics are best studies using simulations because they focus on processes rather than their products. I became one of the pioneers of agent-based modeling in philosophy by organizing a bi-annual workshop (Agent-Based Modeling in Philosophy) aimed specifically at teaching philosophers how to program these models.
After my PhD (Models in Science) I realized that Thomas Kuhn presented a perspective on science that unified the questions I was asking (A Mechanism of Progressive Paradigm Change, Satisficing as an Account of Kuhnian Rationality, The Problem of Kuhnian Rationality) . For the unifying principle behind this insight (A Unified Model of the Division of Cognitive Labor) I was awarded the PSA award, the most prestigious prize for graduate students in my field. This brought me invitations for lectures and helped me to become a recognized Kuhn-scholar. Top journals such as the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science ask me to referee papers on Kuhnian themes. I have edited special issues of both Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (The Progress of Science) and Topoi (Introduction: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50 Years On) on the occasion of the 50th birthday of Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. This has given me a large network among other Kuhn-experts. I am also the owner of http://www.tskuhn.com where I blog, spread news and disseminate my work.
During this period I started appreciating the relevance of physics. I brought together Koen Schoors, an economist specializing in financial crashes, Eric Schliesser, an expert in history and philosophy of science and Jan Ryckebusch, an expert on phase transitions in physics to form the Complex Systems Institute (http://www.csi.ugent.be), an interdisciplinary research group on critical events in complex systems. As thesis supervisor of physics students I learnt about recent developments in network theory and realized that Kuhn’s framework could offer a way to draw philosophical conclusions from empirical data in much the same way as these tools had already successfully yielded new insights in financial economics. This new image of science opens up a new range of systemic questions about science. In my paper The Kuhnian Paradigm I lay out this research programme in more detail.
Supervisors: Eric Schliesser
After my PhD (Models in Science) I realized that Thomas Kuhn presented a perspective on science that unified the questions I was asking (A Mechanism of Progressive Paradigm Change, Satisficing as an Account of Kuhnian Rationality, The Problem of Kuhnian Rationality) . For the unifying principle behind this insight (A Unified Model of the Division of Cognitive Labor) I was awarded the PSA award, the most prestigious prize for graduate students in my field. This brought me invitations for lectures and helped me to become a recognized Kuhn-scholar. Top journals such as the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science ask me to referee papers on Kuhnian themes. I have edited special issues of both Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (The Progress of Science) and Topoi (Introduction: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50 Years On) on the occasion of the 50th birthday of Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. This has given me a large network among other Kuhn-experts. I am also the owner of http://www.tskuhn.com where I blog, spread news and disseminate my work.
During this period I started appreciating the relevance of physics. I brought together Koen Schoors, an economist specializing in financial crashes, Eric Schliesser, an expert in history and philosophy of science and Jan Ryckebusch, an expert on phase transitions in physics to form the Complex Systems Institute (http://www.csi.ugent.be), an interdisciplinary research group on critical events in complex systems. As thesis supervisor of physics students I learnt about recent developments in network theory and realized that Kuhn’s framework could offer a way to draw philosophical conclusions from empirical data in much the same way as these tools had already successfully yielded new insights in financial economics. This new image of science opens up a new range of systemic questions about science. In my paper The Kuhnian Paradigm I lay out this research programme in more detail.
Supervisors: Eric Schliesser
less
InterestsView All (14)
Uploads
Papers by Rogier De Langhe
https://www.demorgen.be/opinie/basisinkomen-is-geen-vangnet-maar-een-springplank-b226743d/
model are built to explain how possibly both kinds of progressive scientific change can result from the interactions of individuals exploring an epistemic landscape. These models are shown to result in qualitatively different predictions about what the resulting system of science should be like.
inference to the best explanation. This paper asks whether the appeal of mainstream economics to inference to the best explanation is justified and as a consequence questions one
of the main reasons for the dominance of mainstream economics today. The final section integrates the ideas from the previous sections into a general framework for explanatory
pluralism.
https://www.demorgen.be/opinie/basisinkomen-is-geen-vangnet-maar-een-springplank-b226743d/
model are built to explain how possibly both kinds of progressive scientific change can result from the interactions of individuals exploring an epistemic landscape. These models are shown to result in qualitatively different predictions about what the resulting system of science should be like.
inference to the best explanation. This paper asks whether the appeal of mainstream economics to inference to the best explanation is justified and as a consequence questions one
of the main reasons for the dominance of mainstream economics today. The final section integrates the ideas from the previous sections into a general framework for explanatory
pluralism.