AbstractWe propose to strengthen Popper's notion of falsifiability by adding the requirement that when an observation is inconsistent with a theory, there must be a "short proof" of this inconsistency. We model the concept of a short proof using tools from computational complexity, and provide some examples of economic theories that are falsifiable in the usual sense but not with this additional requirement. We consider several variants of the de nition of "short proof" and several assumptions about the difficulty of computation, and study their different implications on the falsifiability of theories. JEL Classification: B400
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science in its series Discussion Papers with number 1564.
Date of creation: 11 Apr 2013
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science, Northwestern University, 580 Jacobs Center, 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208-2014
Web page: http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/math/
More information through EDIRC
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- B40 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - General
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Lance Fortnow & Rakesh V. Vohra, 2009. "The Complexity of Forecast Testing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(1), pages 93-105, 01.
- Thomas DEMUYNCK, 2010. "The computational complexity of boundedly rational choice behavior," Center for Economic Studies - Discussion papers ces10.23, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën.
- Thomas DEMUYNCK, 2011.
"The computational complexity of rationalizing Pareto optimal choice behavior,"
Center for Economic Studies - Discussion papers
ces11.13, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën.
- Thomas Demuynck, 2014. "The computational complexity of rationalizing Pareto optimal choice behavior," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 529-549, March.
- Gil Kalai & Ariel Rubinstein & Ran Spiegler, 2002.
"Rationalizing Choice Functions By Multiple Rationales,"
Econometric Society, vol. 70(6), pages 2481-2488, November.
- Gil Kalai & Ariel Rubenstein & Ran Spiegler, 2001. "Rationalizing Choice Functions by Multiple Rationales," Economics Working Papers 0010, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
- Gil Kalai & Ariel Rubinstein & Ran Spiegler, 2001. "Rationalizing Choice Functions by Multiple Rationales," Discussion Paper Series dp278, The Center for the Study of Rationality, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
- Apesteguia, Jose & Ballester, Miguel A., 2010. "The Computational Complexity of Rationalizing Behavior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 356-363, May.
Blog mentionsAs found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
- Raising the bar of falsifiability in Economics
by Economic Logician in Economic Logic on 2013-06-28 14:20:00
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Fran Walker).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.