Edoardo Peruzzi

Economists are often called upon as expert witnesses by the parties involved in antitrust litigation. One challenge they may face in US federal courts is compliance with the Daubert standard of admissibility of expert testimony. The interplay between model applicability and the Daubert standard is analyzed, suggesting the importance of distinguishing between weak applicability claims, those that state that a model’s critical assumptions are shared by the target, and strong applicability claims, those that connect empirical models and quantitative market features. Recent antitrust cases in which expert testimonies based on economic models have been assessed following the Daubert standard are examined using this framework. Some normative implications are drawn concerning how to improve judges’ assessment of model-based arguments.

Scientific research is highly specialized, yet modern science increasingly involves interdisciplinary interactions. One key aspect of this is the transfer of models across domains, raising questions about how such transfers relate to successful interdisciplinary research. This chapter examines processes of model transfer, particularly the movement of mathematical models between fields, as instances of research across disciplines that occur alongside increasing specialization. Model transfer processes are manifold in that models from some source domain undergo different kinds of modification processes in order to become applicable in a new domain. We sketch a taxonomy of different modification procedures that enable cross-domain model transfer. The goal is to learn from model transfer something about the different ways in which interdisciplinarity manifests itself in a highly specialized scientific landscape.

We examine the relationship between scientific knowledge and the legal system with a focus on the exclusion of expert testimony from trial as ruled by the Daubert standard in the US.We introduce a simple framework to understand and assess the role of judges as “gatekeepers”, monitoring the admission of science in the courtroom. We show how judges face a crucial choice, namely, whether to limit Daubert assessment to the abstract reliability of the methods used by the expert witness or also to check whether the application of those methods was correct. Undesirable outcomes result from both choices, thereby giving rise to the “gatekeeper’s dilemma.” We illustrate the dilemma by analyzing in some detail two well-known cases of Daubert challenges to economic experts. Finally, we present reasons for the absence of straightforward solutions to the dilemma and for its likely endurance.

This paper aims to show the central role that higher-order evidence plays in an established cultural practice in our society, namely, legal cross-examination. First, we will show how legal cross-examination can be epistemologically reconstructed as an epistemic practice that has the higher-order defeat of a witness’ testimony as its main goal. Then, we will discuss how different paradigmatic cases of successful cross-examination arguably instantiate different mechanisms of higher-order defeat that have been described in the epistemological literature. We will argue that our analysis further demonstrates the significance of higher-order evidence as an epistemic phenomenon and provides a prima facie case for a pluralist view of higher-order defeat.

This paper defends the viability of de-idealization strategies in economic modeling against recent criticism. De-idealization occurs when an idealized assumption of a theoretical model is replaced with a more realistic one. Recently, some scholars have raised objections against the possibility or fruitfulness of de-idealizing economic models, suggesting that economists do not employ this kind of strategy. We present a detailed case study from the theory of industrial organization, discussing three different models, two of which can be construed as de-idealized versions of the first (the so-called Bertrand model of oligopoly). We conclude that recent pessimism about de-idealization in economics is largely unfounded, and that de-idealization strategies are not only possible but also widely employed in economics.

This paper defends the viability of de-idealization strategies in economic modeling against recent criticism. De-idealization occurs when an idealized assumption of a theoretical model is replaced with a more realistic one. Recently, some scholars have raised objections against the possibility or fruitfulness of de-idealizing economic models, suggesting that economists do not employ this kind of strategy. We present a detailed case study from the theory of industrial organization, discussing three different models, two of which can be construed as de-idealized versions of the first. We conclude that recent pessimism about de-idealization in economics is largely unfounded, and that de-idealization strategies are not only possible but also widely employed in economics.