Determining the characteristics that constitute the scientific method and the differences between the scientific method and non-scientific approaches for gaining knowledge is a philosophic-theoretical issue with extensive practical implications. On the one hand, the solution of this problem affects the sciences themselves, which have to align their work accordingly and simultaneously have the opportunity to critically reflect themselves. On the other hand, it affects different everyday contexts, such as evidence-based methods for entrepreneurial decisions. Here, questions arise as to under which conditions factual statements (e.g. “This raven is black.”) and statements by the law of nature (e.g. “All ravens are black.”) may be considered as being reliable statements, how the problem of induction can be negotiated in case of practical challenges and which factual fallacies are generally possible. The problem of induction describes the challenge of concluding a statement by the law of nature (“All ravens are black.”) from a finite number of cases (“Raven 1 is black”, “Raven 2 is black”, “Raven n is black”).

The professorship collaborates closely with representatives of the scientific community in research projects in order to contribute to the basic methodological issues. Moreover, we foster a vivid exchange with business representatives on the connection between scientific method and entrepreneurial practice. Our principal research method consists of the logical and analytical clarification of concepts based on the acquisition of scientific insights and canonical research methods.

• What separates science and non-science?
• What distinguishes the scientific method?
• What is evidence-based management from the methodological perspective?
• What may be considered an explanation in contrast to a mere description of a phenomenon, in particular in the social and cognitive sciences?
• Under which conditions may factual statements and statements by the law of nature be considered reliable?
• How can the problem of induction be negotiated in case of practical challenges?
• Which factual fallacies are generally possible?
• How can constitutive-mechanistic and causal explanations be generated?
• On which metaphysical fundamental hypotheses are the different scientific models based?  
• Why do the explanatory models in economics and other social sciences differ from the psychological ones?
• Which is currently our best theory of causation?
• How do game theory findings relate to classical business ethics theories?

Within the context of research co-operations, one of the major objectives of the professorship is to become an international benchmark for the scientific philosophy of social and cognitive sciences as well as for basic research on evidence-based management. To this end, a reasonable balance between teaching and research is always of utmost importance. We therefore aim at including current research findings in our lectures and seminars in order to adequately match the interests and expectations of students in the different courses.

Professor Jens Harbecke coordinates this international project funded by the European Commission with researchers at the University of Helsinki (Finland), the University of Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium), the University of Applied Sciences Brandenburg (Germany), the Max-Weber-Kolleg Erfurt (Germany) and Witten/Herdecke University (Germany). For further information, please visit: www.insosci.eu

The research project deals with the fact that governments of the western world increasingly address neuroscience and social science experts in order to seek advice when drafting new legislative proposals. One approach is conducting research on the limits of rational behaviour in connection with financial markets, consumption patterns or addictive behaviour. The resulting scientific findings shall be used to 'nudge' citizens gently towards behaviour deemed to be in their best interest by means of appropriate legal provisions.

Such undertakings, however, frequently did not prove to be effective in the past and partly conflicted with the basic rights and free will of the individual. Above all, a concept for adequately integrating the different disciplines was missing. The different levels of reality and motivational drivers are evident on the part of neuroscience, inter alia, in the findings on neuronal or hormonal mechanisms and on the part of social science in findings on individual decisions and institutional structures.

The Witten subproject of this international research project focuses on a salient and politically relevant topic: the financial markets. According to a widespread opinion, many of the dysfunctionalities within financial markets result from a conflict between emotions and rationality in individual decision-making processes. At Witten we aim at developing a theoretical and methodological framework for the conceptual and methodological analysis of this conflict. For this purpose, philosophers, neuroscientists and economists closely collaborate in order to identify and draft new solutions for regulatory economic interventions on this interdisciplinary basis.

Prof. Jens Harbecke is principal investigator of this three-year project with research teams at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel), the University of Cologne and Witten/Herdecke University. The German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development funds the projects within the GIF regular programme. The project started in January 2015 and will end in December 2017. It comprises three PhD projects, regular team member workshops and meetings as well as three joint scientific symposiums. For more information, please visit the project website at: http://www.philosophy-cognitive-science.com/.