Isn't there also a question of what a paradigm is? As I understand it, this
is taken to be a very broad notion, akin to word-view. That scientists are
able to shift between theories that lie within the same paradigm is thus
less surprising. How often do paradigms shift? What did scientists do o
IL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Skeptical Inquirer-article address
On Monday, February 25, 2002 8:11 PM john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> I'm not so sure I understand what D. McCloskey's piece
> is saying. When he remarks that, "The result of
> reading 44 pages of hundreds of sc
On Monday, February 25, 2002 8:11 PM john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> I'm not so sure I understand what D. McCloskey's piece
> is saying. When he remarks that, "The result of
> reading 44 pages of hundreds of scientific results
> from the front line of applied economics was mainly
> that I be
Howdy,
I'm not so sure I understand what D. McCloskey's piece
is saying. When he remarks that, "The result of
reading 44 pages of hundreds of scientific results
from the front line of applied economics was mainly
that I believed surprisingly little of it," I am
reminded about the old saying that
I don't see how the article can be interpreted as "not attacking
econometric methods." The article starts off by referring to such methods
as "junk science," follows by arguing that econometricians can obtain any
result they wish by arbitrary manipulations, and finishes with a lament
that acade
It might be worth adding to this discussion that Skeptical Inquirer's
objective is to call attention to claims of dubious scientific merit so that
they can be given further scrutiny. My reading of the article in question is
not that it is attacking the methods of econometrics, but rather notin
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:11:07 -0700 (MST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> There isn't anything substantive here. . .
>
> Chris Auld
I think the point the article makes is an important one. In general,
regardless of how sophisticated someone's econometrics work is, other
economists almost alway
There isn't anything substantive here. He says
researchers sometimes make faulty inferences,
that different models can produce different
results, and notes the trickiness of the ol'
correlation v causation issue. Several of the
papers the gives as case studies are misrepresented.
A contradic
I just found that article from the Skeptical Inquirer:
crab.rutgers.edu/%7Egoertzel/mythsofmurder.htm
You can also read about it at Chance News
www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/chance_news/current_news/current.html#item10
-jsh
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! S
