Re: [Fwd: nobel]

[Paul Downward <P.M.Downward@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hear, hear Andy,

Paul.


On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 07:34:57 -0700 (PDT) Andrew Mearman
<ajmearman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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

________________________
Dr Paul Downward
Reader in Economics
Staffordshire University
Leek Road
Stoke on Trent
ST4 2DF

Tel:	+44 1782 294101 (direct line)
	+44 1782 294074 (message)

FAX:	+44 1782 294907