Re: [Fwd: nobel]

[Andrew Mearman <ajmearman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Quantitative analysis can be useful, but the act of
quantification is not as benign as the responses in
this thread so far have suggested.  The act of
creating sets of like objects involves the assumption
of equivalence and the act of attaching cardinal
values to those objects is even more complex.

It may well be the case that in economics, such
assumptions cannot be perfectly justified.  How much
"qualitative invariance" is there across most economic
phenomena? It might then be argued that one can "do a
pretty good job" at meeting the necessary conditions,
but immediately we are then admitting that the
precision of quantitative methods is not quite as
clear as some might claim.

What this implies is open to interpretation.  To me,
it means that we can find qualified justification for
many empirical methods, but that careful use (as
opposed to the blind faith exhibited in some quarters)
is crucial and a strategy of the triangulation of
various methods should be central to inference.

Andrew

--- Clifford Poirot <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think I would be inclined to agree with Paul about
> the utility of
> econometrics as a means of empirical observation
> save in very limited ways.
> That is not to argue against quantification per se.
> On the whole, I would
> argue the very best analysis of the Great Depression
> is Kindleberger's "The
> World in Depression". It is far superior to either
> Temin's or Friedman's
> works on the Great dDepression. Kindleberger did not
> use one econometric
> equation, while Friedman and Temin devoted great
> efforts to econometrics.
>
> Schumpeter and Rostow contributed a great deal to
> our knowleddge of leading
> sectors and industrialization. Econometricians came
> up with the brilliant
> observation that if we hadn't built railroads, we
> would have to build
> canals. If we hadn't developed east to west, we
> could have developed north
> to south (which actually ignores the obstacles to
> development in the
> southern states). Based on this incredible insight,
> they concluded we could
> have gotten along just fine without railroads...
>
> Post-Keynesians would do better to re-emphasize and
> rethink the role of
> historical narrative or is the proposition that
> history matters to be
> reduced to propositions about idempotent matrices?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sven R Larson [mailto:slarson@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:06 PM
> To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> /srl
>
> --
> Dr. Sven R Larson
> Department of Economics
> Skidmore College
> 815, North Broadway
> Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
> (518) 580-5278


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com