>>> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/11/99 04:43PM >>> Charles, 1) I believe that I have been using the term "mistake' not "accident" with respect to the Chinese embassy bombing. Certainly that is what I have meant, even if I have said otherwise. CB: I'll bite. What is the difference between a mistake and an accident ? (((((((((((( I have repeatedly said, that, mistake or accident, the bombing of the Chinese embassy was not justified and should be condemned, along with the bombing of other targets in Yugoslavia, which has resulted in many more innocent civilian deaths than did the one of the Chinese embassy, although that one is certainly going to lead to much more negative consequences for the US. CB: Agree ((((((((((((( 2) I am only going to respond to your remarks about econometrics on pen-l because I am already overquota on lbo-talk and the econometrics discussion has been here. Properly done (according to the textbooks) an econometric test should be of a hypothesis derived from some economic theory (however bourgeois, alienated, misguided, or ideologically twisted). Thus, when Card and Krueger set out to look at the relationship between increases in the minimum wage and the impact on employment, they were looking at something that, although subject to a certain amount of randomness, nevertheless supposedly had a causal relationship. When they produced serious evidence that the expected relationship was not there, it created quite a stir. CB: Not to be picky, but isn't there a difference between causation and and statistical correlation ? Seems they would be setting out to show a statistical correlation that would be some empirical evidence of a causal connection. Anyway, I read on. (((((((((((((((( Everything has noise, even if governed by probability distributions a la quantum mechanics. CB: As Engels said, the laws of nature assert themselves amidst a welter of random events. (((((((((((((((( The embassy bombing looks pretty noisy to me, whether mistake, accident, plot by Serbian spy, plot by super-sneaky Clintonites too smart for their own good, or plot by secret cabal of ultra-militarists, or.... CB: Just to be clear, what would be an example of this not being part of the noise ? If they were bombing the Chinese embassy ON PURPOSE, INTENTIONALLY, not neglegently or recklessly, they might use the excuse that it was an accident or mistake to coverup or for plausible denial. But as you say, the U.S., is culpable whether it was on purpose or reckless. (((((((((((((((( BTW, I agree with whoever it was (Peter Dorman?) who said that a lot more effort should be put into getting better data than on developing ever fancier ways of torturing the data that we have. One of the strengths of the Card-Krueger study was that they developed their own data set. I also agree with Peter (I think) that a serious look should be made at the McCloskey critique of the standard practice of econometrics, along with the related Leamer "let's take the 'con' out of econometrics" stuff. Finally, I would note that econometrics has been used to expose bogus baloney from racist ideologues. The example that comes to mind most sharply is the expose by Arthur Goldberger and Charles Manski of the fallaciousness of the Murray-Hernnstein _The Bell Curve_. Chas.: I'm not opposed to the use of statistics, including econometrics. But if you were using probability theory on this bombing, it would be a pretty good correlation, as some others have pointed out, no ? I'd have to think about how you set up the correlation, I guess. On econometrics in general, I don't have enough experience to really enter the discussion on this thread, however, I find credible the criticisms from those who do (probably including you) who say that it has in fact been abused by many , and there must be an ongoing struggle by progressive economists to clean it up. Charles Brown -----Original Message----- From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 4:27 PM Subject: [PEN-L:6684] Mistakes, randomness, accidents and econometrics > > >>>> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/11/99 01:48PM >> > BTW, for those who come up with half-baked probability >calculations and then declare that this could not have been >a mistake, I would remind you that the chances of the Three >Mile Island accident happening were supposedly something >like one-in-ten billion. > >(((((((((((((((((( > >Random Barkley, > >Maybe it was a butterfly in China flapping its wings that caused this mistake, this accidental bombing. > >Funny how econometrics is used to find order and correlation in plottings of points that seem random. But when it comes to explaining events that look causally connected, you tend to see it as random , an accident. > >As Engels said, the laws of nature assert themselves through a series of accidents. > >Charles Brown > >