Caamaño Alegre, JoséCaamaño Alegre, María2020-03-252020-03-252019Caamaño-Alegre, J. and Caamaño-Alegre, M., 2019. Enlarged Empirical Economics and the Quest for Validity: Facing the Ontological Intricacies of the Social Domain. Journal of Institutional Studies, 11(1), pp.20-402076-6297http://hdl.handle.net/10347/20908This article focuses on the impact that the recent widening of empirical economics has on the quest for validity in this field. We begin by summarizing the continuous evolution from a primarily deductive economics to a more empirical one, especially emphasizing the broader experimental and survey-based evidence. Although these developments pave the way for an economics with greater empirical support, they also bring into this field the same validity concerns that mainstream economists naively thought to be avoidable (i. e., concerns with the external validity of experiments and with “test validity” issues largely addressed in other social sciences). We show how, ultimately, such developments force economists to confront some serious challenges and limitations in the quest for validity arising from four ontological peculiarities of the social domain: 1) the awareness of the inquiry on the part of the subject being studied; 2) the lack of relevant structural homogeneity between individuals’ shared psychological properties; 3) actions holistic dependence on the individuals’ complete past; and 4) the variable and holistic nature of cultural, conventionally mediated forms of interaction. We finally argue that openly acknowledging these problems would help economists to tone down their scientificity claims and avoid pseudo-scientific practices like endorsing assumptions refuted by experience.eng© Каманьо-Алегре Х., Каманьо-Алегре М., 2019. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/External validityExperimental economicsTest validitySurvey researchPseudosciencejournal article10.17835/2076-6297.2019.11.1.020-0402412-6039open access