چكيده لاتين
Financial economists believe that financial economics is the knowledge of explaining, predicting and controlling financial markets;But the observed data does not support this claim.The non-fulfillment of the predictions of this knowledge in the last three decades has caused at least three crises in the world economy and, as a result, has cast doubt on the validity of the statements of this knowledge.Two classic financial approaches and behavioral finance as the dominant model of financial economics are still involved in the issue of validity, and it is necessary to formulate a correct and acceptable criterion to validate the propositions of these two competing thoughts.
In the framework of financial economics knowledge, two types of validity are proposed: theoretical (internal) and practical (external) validity.According to the rationalist method, classical financial propositions, knowledge has theoretical validity;But as long as validity it can provide honest predictions of financial market phenomena, it will have practical valid.In the case of behavioral finance, the propositions based on the observation-oriented approach are issued, to some extent practical validity is established;But this approach does not guarantee theoretical validity;Therefore, evaluating the validity of financial economics propositions has become an ambiguous matter.
The study, evaluation and validation of the propositions of different sciences are not done within those sciences;Rather, such a task is the responsibility of "philosophy of science" which includes three fields of epistemology, ontology and methodology.In the framework of the philosophy of financial economics, the validity of propositions - theoretical and practical - is examined and evaluated around the axis of "Truth".
Based on the results of the present study, classic finance and behavioral finance, as two main and competing paradigms, have different approaches in facing the issue of truth.Classical financial economics based on idealistic ontology considers truth to be equivalent to epistemological justification and based on methodological individualism, by limiting the existence of the investor in the framework of the "Optimizer Agent" as the hard core of this knowledge, it has used the analogical method to issue economic propositions.
On the other hand, behavioral finance starts its study from observational data and by testing classical finance propositions, it makes the patterns governing the observed inconsistencies of classical finance forecasts as the basis of theorizing.By moving from the level of observations to philosophical foundations, behavioral finance replaces the "Satisfying Agent" in the hard core of classical finance and organizes theorizing according to this reading of the subject of economics.However, the two competing approaches do not have any clear claims for the truth issue and its realization methods;Rather, the philosophy based on these two thoughts does not have the necessary capacity to be truth.
