BLOG

#4: Thoughts On "Experiments, Causal Inference, AND Limits of Evidence" – a CEPBI Tandem Talk with Nancy Cartwright, Berna Devezer and Andrew Gelman.

Coming soon

New post coming soon – stay tuned!

Recommended References

Buzbas, E. O., & Devezer, B. (2024). Statistics in Service of Metascience: Measuring Replication Distance with Reproducibility Rate. Entropy, 26(10), 842. https://doi.org/10.3390/e26100842

Buzbas, E. O., Devezer, B., & Baumgaertner, B. (2023). The logical structure of experiments lays the foundation for a theory of reproducibility. Royal Society Open Science, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.221042

Cartwright, N., Munro, E., & Pemberton, J. (Forthcoming). Causal Processes and their Warrant: A Practical Guide. Cambridge University Press.

Deaton, A., & Cartwright, N. (2018). Understanding and Misunderstanding Randomized Controlled Trials. Social Science & Medicine, 210, 2–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005

Devezer, B., & Buzbas, E. O. (2023). Rigorous exploration in a model-centric science via epistemic iteration. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 12(2), 189–194.https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000121

Devezer, B., & Buzbas, E. O. (2025). Minimum viable experiment to replicate. PhilSci-Archive [Preprint]. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/24738/1/Minimum_Viable_Experiment_to_Replicate_preprint.pdf

Devezer, B., Nardin, L. G., Baumgaertner, B., & Buzbas, E. O. (2019). Scientific discovery in a model-centric framework: Reproducibility, innovation, and epistemic diversity. PLOS ONE, 14(5), e0216125. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216125

Devezer, B., Navarro, D. J., Vandekerckhove, J., & Ozge Buzbas, E. (2021). The case for formal methodology in scientific reform. Royal Society Open Science, 8(3).

Gelman, A. (2014). Experimental reasoning in social science. Field experiments and their critics: Essays on the uses and abuses of experimentation in the social sciences, 185-95. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300199307-009

Gelman, A. (2017). Benefits and limitations of randomized controlled trials: A commentary on Deaton and Cartwright. Social Science & Medicine, 210, 48–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.04.034

Kennedy, L., & Gelman, A. (2021). Know your population and know your model: Using model-based regression and poststratification to generalize findings beyond the observed sample. Psychological Methods, 26(5), 547–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000362

#3: Thoughts on "HUMANITY AND VULNERABILITY: GENERATIVE AI IN THE MARKET AND SOCIETY" – a CEPBI Tandem Talk with COLIN ALLEN and JULIAN DE FREITAG.

JUL 29, 2024 | NITIKA GARG

Generative AI has exploded on the scene and captured everyone’s fantasies as well as nightmares. From GenAI helping us with mundane tasks such as composing an email, to it potentially taking over our jobs (De Cremer and Kasparov 2021), the narrative of its impact is literally limited only by human imagination at this time.

In this climate, a talk on GenAI’s impact on human behavior and the potential dark side of this influence and its implications for consumer welfare (e.g., Puntoni and Wertenbroch 2024) was particularly timely. To me, it was especially interesting to hear thoughts from both a philosophical (Colin) and a behavioral science (Julian) perspective. The convergence between the two perspectives, especially with regards to the ideas of accountability and consumer trust, was thought-provoking.

Who is accountable for GenAI and its impact on consumers? What are the consequences of human trust in technology?

While new developments are rapidly emerging in this field, it is unclear who is responsible for their consequences. Colin discussed the case of self-driving cars and highlighted how consumers attribute blame differently depending on whether an accident involves an autonomous vehicle or a human driven one. Recent research underscores this significant shift in moral judgment when machines, as opposed to humans, are perceived as agents and decision-makers. For example, Gill (2020) found that individuals were more inclined to prioritize their own safety over that of pedestrians when the vehicle was autonomous rather than human driven.

Julian highlighted the gaps in consumer’s (as well as policy maker’s) understanding of the limitations of AI in the health domain. Specifically, he discussed how health apps, especially those purporting to support mental health, might inadvertently be escalating crisis situations because they are currently unable to accurately evaluate the human aspects such as the emotional state of a user (De Cremer and Kasparov 2021). While AI's ability to integrate and utilize vast medical data can be critically helpful in aiding accurate diagnostics and personalized healthcare decisions and medical regimen (Gupta, Kamboj, and Bag 2023), its unmonitored use can lead to substantial harm, as in the case above.

As the examples discussed by Colin and Julian illustrate, even something as innocuous as using ChatGPT for references or suggestions can be rife with problems, with users who do not understand its limitations or risks associated with its misuse (e.g., Gupta et al. 2023). Who is responsible for communicating these limitations to users, the companies which developed the apps or the regulatory agencies? Research has shown that consumers have an implicit ‘positive bias’ toward new technologies (Clark, Robert and Hampton 2016; Elsbach and Stigliani 2019). This issue is exacerbated by the fact that the interests of companies and consumers seem to be misaligned. On the one hand, companies are eager to capitalize on the potential benefits of AI developments, which PwC research estimates could add approximately $15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030; incentivizing firms to bring their innovations to the market as soon as possible. On the other hand, the current lack of adequate regulation in this domain (e.g., de Almeida, dos Santos, and Farias 2021; Smuha 2021), woefully behind the rapid evolution of GenAI, implies that there is little impeding this unfettered progress, potentially posing considerable risks to consumers and societies.

Looking forward to the future, a key question thus arises; Should the developments in GenAI be intentionally slowed down to keep pace with regulations (governmental or industry)? It is interesting and somewhat alarming that there are calls to do just that, not just by scientists or philosophers or policy makers, but by the very people whose economic interests would argue for accelerating these developments such as Elon Musk. What is that the experts know or see, and that the everyday consumer does not. How can we address this knowledge gap and hit the right balance between technological advancements and protecting humanity? How can we balance users being aware of the limitations of the technology without them becoming wary of it? As a group of behavioral scientists, I believe that these are the questions we can and should help address. In doing so, we might just save both the technology and the best parts of what makes us human.

References

Clark, B. B., Robert, C., & Hampton, S. A. (2016). The technology effect: how perceptions of technology drive excessive optimism. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31, 87-102.

de Almeida, P. G. R., dos Santos, C. D., & Farias, J. S. (2021). Artificial intelligence regulation: a framework for governance. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(3), 505-525.

De Cremer, D., & Kasparov, G. (2021). AI should augment human intelligence, not replace it. Harvard Business Review, 18(1).

Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2019). New information technology and implicit bias. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(2), 185-206.

Gill, T. (2020). Blame it on the self-driving car: how autonomous vehicles can alter consumer morality. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(2), 272-291.

Gupta, S., Kamboj, S., & Bag, S. (2023). Role of risks in the development of responsible artificial intelligence in the digital healthcare domain. Information Systems Frontiers, 1-18.

Puntoni, S., & Wertenbroch, K. (2024). Being Human in the Age of AI. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 9(3), 000-000.

Smuha, N. A. (2021). From a ‘race to AI’to a ‘race to AI regulation’: regulatory competition for artificial intelligence. Law, Innovation and Technology, 13(1), 57-84.

#2: Thoughts on "MORALITY OF MARKETS & MARKETS OF MORALITY" – a CEPBI Tandem Talk with Hanno Sauer and Amit Bhattacharjee.

MAR 11, 2024 | ED LOVE

Are markets good?

As an Associate Professor of Philosophy, Dr. Hanno Sauer approaches this question through the lenses of metaethics (how does moral judgment work?) and normative ethics (which moral intuitions are justified?). Dr. Amit Bhattacharjee, an Associate Professor of Marketing, is an expert in moral psychology in market settings, and his recent research examines the social foundations of lay economic reasoning.

What struck me most in this dialogue was the intersection of thought between Drs. Sauer and Bhattacharjee. Though distinct, their positions both generally tout the often unheralded benefits of free market structures.

Dr. Sauer characterizes himself as a “51% optimist.” Although he is clearly a fan of markets and their overall impact, he observes that the general incompatibility of marketplace behavior with social norms from other contexts often results in feelings of animus. People hate competitive markets in part because competitiveness is frowned upon in everyday life. Also, when individuals enrich themselves through unintuitive and seemingly arbitrary marketplace mechanisms, it feels confusing and unfair. What’s more, most people respond with disgust when imagining the application of free market principles to nontraditional contexts, such as human organ sales. Given that disgust is a common response to moral violations, one can infer that people hold moral views of markets that tend not to be altogether favorable.

On the other hand, Dr. Bhattacharjee points out that disenchantment with markets tends to be a primarily Western, affluent phenomenon. Having benefited from the prosperity created during past periods of relatively unfettered growth, we Westerners can now afford to concern ourselves with workplace safety, child labor, living wages, inequality, and similar ethical considerations. Those in developing parts of the world tend to view markets more favorably as engines of wealth creation, and to be less willing to impose ethical safeguards that would slow them. Those still mired in poverty may be more acutely aware of the liberating and welfare-enhancing effects of market-driven abundance.

Putting aside important caveats related to market failures and externalities, Dr. Bhattacharjee notes that the utilitarian case for the goodness of markets is rooted in these welfare benefits and reflected in the normative underpinnings of economic science. By most reasonable measures of societal well-being, our condition has consistently improved since the dawn of the industrial revolution, and free market exchange has played a crucial role in fueling this trend. Voluntary trade is fundamentally cooperative, and creates interdependencies that reduce violent conflict. It tends not to occur unless it benefits all parties involved, even if the gains are split unequally. And it drives innovation and the development of valuable offerings that enhance our lives in new ways. However, lay perceptions often diverge sharply from such normative economic assumptions and evidence, and largely neglect the societal benefits of markets while overestimating their harmful effects.

Like his views on those benefits, Dr. Sauer’s concerns about markets can also be construed as consequentialist, although stemming from people’s deontological responses to behaviors uniquely licensed in marketplace contexts. These behaviors often violate more ancient social and communal norms, and thus be a source of psychological suffering. He further makes the striking point that the 200 years of prosperity we’ve enjoyed were in a sense paid for by 10,000 years of human suffering: the norms and institutions that enabled the emergence of modern markets developed during this transition from tribal life to large-scale human societies. From a strictly utilitarian perspective, the force of that argument may be mitigated by the growth in population that has accompanied our growth in prosperity. But ask yourself: how much suffering and abasement would you consent to today to ensure the development of a vast and prosperous galactic civilization 10,000 years from now? Our ancestors were never given that choice.

Of course, time’s arrow flies in one direction, and even 10,000 years of suffering can be written off as sunk cost. Both speakers characterize markets as, on balance, good for us today and into the future. Given how embedded markets are in our social structures, and that there may be no going back, a better question may be: how can we make them work better for everyone?

To grasp the nature of these complicated issues, our various specialties must share their unique perspectives. This is a necessary condition for the development of more useful constructs and more appropriate measures. Perhaps this is why the conversation between Drs. Sauer and Bhattacharjee felt so important, and why the attendees had so much to share. One can begin to imagine a more holistic assessment of big intra-individual structures that influence the human condition.

#1: WHY WE NEED TO THINK MORE PHILOSOPHICALLY ABOUT BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE RELaTED TO MARKETING.

FEB 19, 2024 | CAIT LAMBERTON & MARTIN PAUL FRITZE

"There are those who have knowledge and those who have understanding. The first requires memory and the second philosophy." – Alexandre Dumas

One of the joys of academia is being surrounded by smart people who care a great deal about understanding. So perhaps the enthusiastic response to our invitation to be part of a conversation about philosophy in empirical behavioral research should not have been a surprise. Our first get together included a gathering of scholars from diverse locations, various career phases, and interests. The formation of our Board followed quickly, as did the scheduling of our first Zoom event – and plans for future get-togethers, talks, collaborations, and a first conference.

And while all of this is fun, being people who like philosophy, the people coming together are asking the best, hardest questions about what we’re up to. And while answering these questions will be the work of the whole community, we’d like to offer a few brief thoughts on the major FAQs thus far.

Since we’re only a few months in, for something to be “frequent” doesn’t take much – but they boil down to two.

#1. Why philosophy?

There are great things about empirical behavioral research. Many of our Board members have done quite a lot of it.

But it would be hard to say that its limitations haven’t become evident. Outright fraud is one thing – but beyond that, we’ve debated a lot of questions about replication, relevance, the role of scholarship, and when something can be a TED talk.

Given that even long-held tenets of our disciplines, such as traditional significance testing and rigid adherence to the p-value threshold of < .05, are now increasingly questioned within the field of marketing and beyond, we believe that just posting alternative or ad hoc solutions and rules may not adequately address the epistemological challenges we face. Indeed, new blindly-followed rules may create a bunch of new problems. Rather, we need to think deeply about what our field is doing, and more importantly, work toward a coherent framework – that is, a philosophy – of what it should do and how it should do it.

This is not to say that marketing scholars have never done this. Thinkers like Bobby Calder and Alice Tybout, Morris Holbrook and Itamar Simonson and colleagues laid out groundwork for subareas that allowed us to understand that different work had different “should”: JDM (= judgement and decision making) work wasn’t intended to do what theory-building behavioral work or qualitative inquiry did or vice versa – so being “good” at one didn’t mean you were doing the others well.

But we all wanted to play with one another’s toys. We started to do so faster and faster – but perhaps without keeping an eye on the rules of each others’ games. Further, we lost track of what made our own research better or worse, aside from whether it got published or not. What makes behavioral research “good?” What are our guidelines for evaluating evidence? What are we supposed to be doing? How do we know if we’ve done it well?

We don’t expect to reach one set of answers to these questions; heterodoxy in a field is critical. Rather, we hope that a structured debate incorporating methodological advancements and epistemological rigor might allow us to foster diversity without tipping into Feyerabend-esque “anything goes” positions. We hope to have conversations that move beyond defensiveness, hand-waving, and camp choosing. We hope that people are inspired to form coherent philosophies regarding epistemology, hermeneutics, and what-is-the-point-of-all-of-this-anyway, and to form a language that allows us to debate those things. We hope that we come to see ourselves as part of a long philosophical tradition – and one to which we can also contribute.

Because if we don’t, we fear that we’ll continue to play whack-a-mole. We’ll keep finger pointing and proposing one-off fixes that don’t cohere into a knowledge base, or a community, that makes much sense. To do better, we need to be more intentional about owning each of our own intellectual underpinnings, ethics, epistemologies, and values, and having a clear-eyed assessment of the strengths and limitations of the positions we take. That’s what we hope philosophical thought can help us sort out.

Far beyond epistemological concerns alone, we believe philosophy-infused behavioral science can help addressing big questions with fresh perspectives – which brings us to the second point.

#2. What can philosophy do for us?

Well, first, we think it can keep us from looking like we haven’t thought about what we do for a living (see #1). It might also keep us humble. Arguably, Plato trotted out Dual Systems Theory , Sir Francis Bacon nailed the confirmation bias, Laplace anticipated the deviations from probabilistic utility optimization that lie at the core of behavioral economics, and taxonomies of logical fallacies that have been growing like weeds since Aristotle highlight many tactics studied in the marketing literature. Humans have been doing human things for a long time. Philosophers have been thinking about them.

Rather than thinking we’ve all been scooped, though, this is good news: because it has devoted centuries of thought to many topics we care about, philosophy provides an amazing set of ideas and frameworks that are often amenable to empirical testing and because philosophers make their living out of disagreement, it presents us with a million competing hypotheses for which theoretical frameworks have already been proposed. What’s left for us to do is to operationalize these frameworks, see if they reflect phenomena in the marketplace, and think about whether they can be tested. We can turn thought experiments into real experiments. We won’t answer eternal philosophical questions for all time with a single study, but we can offer interesting – and new - contributions to these long conversations.

Philosophical thinking can also help us make sense of data. Hans-Georg Gadamer’s, “Truth and Method,” argues for a few hundred pages that we reach truth not by claiming our method is perfectly objective (it isn’t) but by working together to interpret what we learn. The more honest we are about the limits of any given method – and yes, that includes the scientific one – the more likely we are to make statements that won’t embarrass us a few years from now. We’ll write more about that later – but we have hope.

Over the next few months, we’ll publish some blog posts about work that are being inspired by philosophy, host some contemporary philosophers for Zoom tandem talks with behavioral scientist, probably propose a roundtable or two, and work together on a first paper intended to propose philosophical approaches to a wide range of marketing topics.

We invite you to comment, participate, come to the Zoom talks, find us at conferences, and most of all, read some philosophers.

It’s unlikely to hurt, and it may spark something worth discussing. We’ll be glad to welcome you if you’d like to do so.

tHOUGHTFUL CONTRIBUTIONS outside the tandem talks

#1: The “Garden of Epicurus” in Thessaloniki, Greece, and How Epicurean Philosophy is Connected to Behavioral Science - INSIGHTS FROM Rodoula H. Tsiotsou.

APR 30, 2025 | RODOULA H. TSIOTSOU

«Ουκ έστιν ηδέως ζην άνευ του φρονίμως και καλώς και δικαίως, ουδέ φρονίμως και καλώς και δικαίως άνευ του ηδέως. Ότῳ δε τούτο μη υπάρχει εξ ού ζην φρονίμως, και καλώς και δικαίως υπάρχει, ουκ έστι τούτον ηδέως ζην.» Επίκουρος (text in ancient Greek)

“It is not possible for one to live pleasantly if one does not live wisely, morally, and justly, just as one cannot live wisely, morally, and justly if one does not live pleasantly.” Epicurus

A Few Words about Epicurus

At the age of 36, Epicurus, an Athenian philosopher born in the 109-4 Olympiad (341 BCE), relocated to Athens with his friends and acquired a little garden situated between the city and the Academy. He established a school and instructed his own intellectual doctrine there. He named the institution "The Garden." Epicurus' Garden rapidly attained significant renown, resulting in the appellation "those from The Garden" for adherents of his philosophy. The dissemination of Epicurean philosophy was facilitated by Epicurus' affection for his pupils, his amiable disposition, and the pragmatic nature of his ethical doctrines. A distinctive feature of the Garden was its avoidance of any cooperative or community organizational structure. The Epicureans did not practice collective ownership, nor was there a compulsory financial contribution to the "leaders" of the Garden by the students, which conferred genuine dignity upon the teachers and mitigated factions and monetary disputes. The lasting success and stability of the Epicurean movement can be credited to Epicurus's organizational skills, which from the beginning removed the main reasons for control and conflict within Epicurean groups and created a good way of living alongside non-Epicureans.

Epicurus divided his philosophy into three parts: a) Canonical or concerning criteria (theory of knowledge), b) Physics (materialist philosophy), and c) Ethics (way of life). He usually taught the canonical or logical philosophy, which he considered the science of knowledge, together with physics. He ranked them this way so that logic would introduce physics, which would help in understanding ethics, his main subject. The highest good for Epicurus is life itself— life on earth, because there is no other. A happy life is founded on three things: peace of mind, “ataraxia”, and moderate enjoyment of goods.

A Brief Overview of the Friends of Epicurean Philosophy "The Garden of Thessaloniki"

The friends of Epicurean philosophy "The Garden of Thessaloniki" constitutes a voluntary, participatory, informal, and non-statutory fellowship of friends and followers of the teachings of Epicurus, the great materialist and anti-metaphysical philosopher. “In the year 2007, during the month of November, we gathered and decided to make a deviation in our lives, which would also be a deviation in social life. We decided that, after sixteen hundred years, the time had come to reconstitute and continue the Garden of Epicurus. Since then, the Thessaloniki Garden has continued the experiential approach to the philosophy of Epicurus, serving as a meeting point for friends of Epicurean Philosophy from all over Greece.” (https://epicuros.net/)

Since then, the Garden of Thessaloniki grew and became popular in the city and Greece. It also inspired the formation of the Garden of Epicurus in Athens and Cyprus.

The Garden of Thessaloniki operates as a modern continuation of the ancient philosophical Garden of Epicurus.

Connecting Epicurus' Philosophy with Behavioral Science

Behavioral scientists can significantly benefit by Epicurean philosophy as it provides fundamental insights that correspond with essential concepts in behavioral research and contemporary psychology. Epicurus was an early empiricist, asserting that knowledge should be based on direct observation and experience rather than superstition or abstract speculation. He posited that all phenomena, including behavior, emerge from lawful interactions among atoms, while also accommodating randomness—anticipating contemporary interpretations of determinism and voluntary action in behavioral science. His empirical approach reflects the scientific method and the experimental rigor fundamental to contemporary behavioral research.

Epicurus prioritized the pursuit of basic pleasures — such as friendship, community, and intellectual exploration — over excessive or artificial desires. He cautioned that the pursuit of superfluous pleasures results in suffering, a notion echoed in behavioral psychology's emphasis on natural reinforcers and the necessity of aligning actions with intrinsic motivators for enduring fulfillment. Epicurus and behavioral scientists endorse environments that reduce aversive stimuli and enhance positive reinforcement, hence promoting well-being for individuals and societies.

Epicurus established the Garden as a community where individuals from many origins might coexist (including women and slaves), prioritizing friendship and mutual support as fundamental to happiness. Current psychology and behavioral studies recognize that social support and community ties are absolutely necessary for securing mental health and resilience development. The inclusive and egalitarian ideas of the Garden show the creation of encouraging settings that enhance well-being and advance growth.

Epicurus offered a complex analysis of human wants and desires, separating between those that are artificial or superfluous (such as wealth or fame) and those that are natural or necessary (such as food and friendship). According to him, happiness depends on understanding and controlling impulses; this viewpoint resonates with modern psychology ideas on motivation and well-being. His focus on reaching "ataraxia," or tranquility and release from fear, reflects the therapeutic goals of contemporary psychology, which include anxiety reduction and the strengthening of emotional balance.

Studying Epicurean philosophy provides behavioral researchers a strong, historically validated framework for understanding social well-being, motivation, and pleasure. Based on scientific ideas, the Garden of Epicurus stresses communal involvement and natural joys while offering timeless insights that align with the objectives and methodologies of contemporary behavioral science.

References

Mitsis, Phillip (NHC Fellow, 1987–88). Epicurus' Ethical Theory: The Pleasures of Invulnerability. Cornell Studies in Classical Philology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988.

Neuringer, Allen and Englert, Walter (2017). Epicurus and B. F. Skinner: In search of the good life. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.230

Rosenbaum, S. E. (1996). Epicurean Moral Theory. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 13(4), 389–410. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27744719

https://in2greece.com/english/historymyth/history/ancient/epicurus.htm

https://www.themindsjournal.com/epicurean-philosophy-for-happiness/

https://www.epicuros.gr/pages/en.htm

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100043469718251

https://epicuros.net/

*You can reach Rodoula H. Tsiotsou at rtsiotsou@uom.edu.gr

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse