tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post4185866057471152337..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Conditional Minimization of Type I Error and the Emergence of Scientific SectsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-73408282999731239772014-04-29T09:42:28.379-04:002014-04-29T09:42:28.379-04:00Interesting post. There is something a bit counter...Interesting post. There is something a bit counter-intuitive about equating the minimization of Type I errors with progress. With the consolidation of a theory during periods of normal science, yes but that seems like an incomplete notion of progress. Wallflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852136998154262919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-30575375110360471082014-04-28T19:12:34.853-04:002014-04-28T19:12:34.853-04:00The problem is not in considering Economics a '...The problem is not in considering Economics a 'Science', not at least as you define that endeavor. The problem is that Economics adopted a definition of Science current in the late 19th century in turn derived from Classical Mechanics. One that held that the fundamental issues had been solved in Physics and the answer was just to extend the methods of the hardest of 'hard sciences' to the other disciplines and then start adding decimal points to the calculated results. That is the idea was that Chemistry could be reduced to Physics, Bio-Chemistry to Chemistry, Biology to Bio-Chemistry and so on until it included the 'Social Sciences' including Psychology and Economics.<br /><br />Unfortunately for Economics and its practitioners Physics itself abandoned this mechanistic and positivistic model under the hammer blows delivered by Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg et al and went over to a more contingent and best case model that rejected Postivism for Explanatory Power.<br /><br />But it seesm to me that Economists never caught on to this profound shift in understanding of the very nature of science and clung to their 1880's version. As if everything could ultimately be solved simply be elaborating their versions of F=MA with enough mathematical and econometric precision.<br /><br />20th century Physicists and Mechanical Engineers are fully aware they are working from 'good enough' models. You don't have to take into account every or really any quantum variation or time delation effect to land a spacecraft on Mars at a time and place of your choice. A few of the larger ones maybe, but mostly they just won't apply at the scale they are operating in.<br /><br />Economics could operate more explicitly like this. There is no need to calculate the world economy by solving equations that start with the six or seven billion variables that are the worlds peoples. But equally you can't just assume that a handful of accounting equations are the equivalent of natural laws and like Euclid or Newtown just work from there. In Popperian terms you cannot just work World to Word at some point you need to go back and test Word AGAINST World and see if your current model really is 'Good Enough'.<br /><br />Empiricism isn't everything but you simply can't excempt a discipline from testing and call it 'Scientific'. No matter how neatly your four variable interact on a white board.Bruce Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13222670342780912788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-30927496185482442692014-04-27T16:37:44.123-04:002014-04-27T16:37:44.123-04:00There is a simpler objection to the notion that a ...There is a simpler objection to the notion that a bias against false positives underpins scientific progress: it is easy to <a href="http://econospeak.blogspot.ca/2014/01/basic-econometrics-tiptoe-through-type.html" rel="nofollow">"fake" a hypothesis test</a> by reverse engineering and it is even easier to <a href="http://econospeak.blogspot.ca/2014/01/basic-econometrics-robots-demand.html" rel="nofollow">delude oneself</a> that one hasn't faked it.<br /><br />Statistical testing is no defense against bullshit. Lies, damned lies and statistical significance.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.com