Abstract: This short paper discusses majority and minority views in economics regarding the value of neuroscience for economics – and thus the value of the neuroeconomics research program. It argues that neuroeconomics’ reception ultimately depends on whether economists adopt a philosophy of science thinking closer to what exists in other sciences. It then argues that an inadvertent a product of this debate is whether people can be identified as relatively independent agents. The paper concludes with comments on what this debate implies about the conception of the decision-maker as a relatively independent identity.
Keywords: neuroeconomics, philosophy of science, instrumentalism, formalism, decision-maker autonomy, identity.
JEL Classification: A12, B41, D03, D87.