4 ms·
Do you honestly believe that? Would you say "psychology is not much better than throwing bones" or "epidemiology is not much better than throwing bones?" Becaus
by pzone 10y ago
Do you honestly believe that? Would you say "psychology is not much better than throwing bones" or "epidemiology is not much better than throwing bones?" Because the demands for statistical rigor in economics are far greater than in those fields. http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/by/year http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/by/year
- evgen 10y agoStatistically rigorous astrology is still bullshit, no matter how much curve-fitting you apply because the core premise is false. Most psychology, as we are now learning when people actually try to replicate experiments, is also bullshit. If economics is starting from equally flawed initial premises regarding individual choice and decision-making, as I and many others believe, then no amount of statistical rigor in the process will change the field from being a contived method of throwing darts and making grand claims about how much you understand dartboards and the aerodynamics of darts.
- mr_overalls 10y agoWell, economists like Deirdre McCloskey have argued that many empirical economic studies have been poorly reported, statistically-speaking. https://web.archive.org/web/20080625054144/http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/ZiliakMcCloskeyAugust2004.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20080625054144/http://www.econjo...