Re: [Fwd: nobel]

["Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re. the following:

> Are you saying qualitative evidence is superior to quantitative? I
> don't think so, but you don't seem to have anything good to say about
> quantitative empirical methods whatsoever.

Comment:

There is nothing wrong with "quantitative empirical methods" per se - since
the days of Tycho Brahe and Galileo, they have been the first step in
developing the models of modern theoretical physics.

They neither do nor can serve the like role in economics where, thanks to
computer power, they occasion enormous waste of intellectual talent in
useless quantitative exercises.

The wonder is why anyone should have "anything good to say about [that]".

Gunnar





----- Original Message -----
From: "Sven R Larson" <slarson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:06 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Fwd: nobel]


>
> paul davidson wrote:
> > Don't confuse econometric research with mere observations! Most
econometric
> > research MISUSES the statistical tools -- since the conditions necessary
> > for tests of significance, etc are not available for most economic
> > data.  Poor statistical analysis is bad statistics -- or as the book I
read
> > when I was a biochemist years ago stated  in its title "How to Lie With
> > Statistics".
>
> Honestly, Paul, anyone with 300-level economics, and particular with
> graduate training, knows this. You're breaking through open doors.
> Even my son, 8 years old, knows that it makes no sense to say that if
> your right hand is in boiling water and your left hand is on ice you
> are on average doing pretty OK. So let's skip that and talk about how
> we can actually approach the world beyond the armchair. I have a
> review of Truman Bewley's book "Why Wages Don't Fall During a
> Recession" in the last ROPE. Read it, then read the book. Bewley shows
> that using the right kind of empirical tools you CAN grasp the world
> in a way that suits a Post Keynesian perspective.
>
> > Crude statistical analysis is bad statistics and deserves to be
recognized
> > as such.  Observatiuon and statistical analysis is not the same.  As a
> > biochemist I was always warned that a column of data that others
collected
> > was merely a column of numbers-- and not information about the real
world [
> > [as those who have been following the recent several decade long
> > disclosures of fabrication of  lab book observations by eminent  and up
> > coming scientists has revealed.  and like Enron that is just the tip of
the
> > iceberg in the natural science-- and econometrics starts even off worse,
> > since the lab book observations are fabricated by someone else who the
> > analyst typically does not know -- and does not communicate with.
>
>
> /srl
>
> --
> Dr. Sven R Larson
> Department of Economics
> Skidmore College
> 815, North Broadway
> Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
> (518) 580-5278
>