Re: Really Big Oil

[Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>]

Raghu wrote:
> Not really. Words can also be used to mislead but numbers give you an
> aura of scientific rigor.

it's quite possible to create an aura of scientific rigor by using the
right vocabulary: use the word "optimal" instead of "best"; use the
word "equilibrium" instead of "balance"; etc. It's not just
sociologists who use jargon up the whazoo (sp?).

Even more popular among economists, math -- even without stats -- can
create such an aura. There are all sorts of economics papers out there
that do nothing but explain common-sense or tautological ideas using
fancy math (Gary Becker once showed that time was money); often the
garbage in (the  outrageous assumptions) _exceeds_ the garbage out, so
the costs of abstraction from perceived empirical reality exceed the
benefits of additional insight into the world.

The point is not to reject statistics, jargon, or math. Rather, it is
to embrace critical thinking about all three of them. But we need one
or two or even all three of them to some extent. It's good to test our
views against available evidence (including stats); sometimes common
language is too ambiguous; and some theories cannot be understood
without some kind of formal analysis. (I think Keynes' theory would
have survived intact despite the efforts of his epigoni if he'd stated
a formal model more clearly -- hopefully in an appendix, as Marshall
did. Of course, if the implications had been clearer, maybe there
wouldn't have been a "Keynesian revolution" among economists.)

--
Jim Devine / "In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to
be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But
in economics, it's the exact opposite." --- Paul Dirac [edited]