Eric, I think we basically agree, though of course it is epistemologically
impossible to _know_ whether or not it is "true" that we agree, just as the
meaning of "truth" is impossible to define or even grasp. ;-)
Or as jesting Pilate asked, "what is truth?"
Seriously, we have to _assume_ that there is some sort of truth out there
(to coin a phrase) or else we get into all sorts of paradoxes. We probably
don't know that truth well or at all in most cases, but if there is no
truth, the whole point of doing research is lost. Nihilism threatens. Why
not just write poetry? There's nothing wrong with poetry, but what's the
point of doing social-scientific research if there's no truth to be found,
if there's no reality independent of our perceptions?
Eric writes: >>Even some well-known mainstream econometricians have claimed
that econometric modelling is merely the production of "metaphors" which
might have little to do with "reality".<<
I agree that economic theories and econometric modelling involve metaphors.
However, they are metaphors _for something_, for an external, objective,
reality that is poorly known. Economic theories, unlike poetic metaphors,
usually involve internal logical consistency, an admirable trait (though
not the only admirable trait around).
>> As any formal model and any econometric study depend on untestable
and/or artificial ancillary assumptions I'm not sure how one can
distinguish between models/empirical results that are "true" and those that
are "false."<<
The "truth" of econometric models is defined relative to each other. The
models that rely the most on untestable and/or artificial assumptions are
inferior to those that rely less on those. Those which are least
contradicted by the data are superior.
There are all sorts of trade-offs here which make things complicated, but I
think one solution is to use "General to Specific Modelling" (cf. Charemza
& Deadman, NEW DIRECTIONS IN ECONOMETRIC PRACTICE, ch. 4), in which two
competing theories are embodied in the same econometric equation in order
to test their relative validity.
>>Econometrics and math modelling is important to do (but so are other
forms of investigation), but not because these two forms of activity are
more likely to generate the "truth" but because they contribute to insights
not generated by other forms of investigation.<<
Insights about what? if they are not insights concerning external reality
("truth"), what are they insights about? concerning our own internal
emotional and rational states? I would see "insights" as synonymous with
"getting closer to understanding the truth of the matter" under study.
I had written >Poetry, etc., is basically "about" human emotions.<
>>In my mind, poetry involves heightened attention to words, sounds, and
meanings.<< and Tom Walker agrees: >>Grrrrrr. One of the great disservices
that positivism has done for north american intellectuals is to persuade
them that poetry is "about emotions". At the risk of committing a similar
reduction, poetry is "about how language works"<<
Sorry. Poetry is a major blank spot in my personal realm of understanding.
I would agree that poetry is "about" language. But again, as I said above,
poetry in fine in and of itself. But social science, though it shares a lot
with poetry (using metaphors, etc.), is also about trying to understand the
objective world.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
