Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

DEFENSIVENESS OF AN ECONOMIC RESEARCHER

—“I’m not trying to insult you, it just seems like you’re trying to make blanket statements about the research methodologies of a discipline you’ve never worked in. I’d be interested in reading what you’ve published. I tried looking you up on EconLit, but it didn’t have any publications listed. I also searched for you on JSTOR and a couple of other databases with philosophy of science journals to no avail.”—

I don’t think you’re trying to insult me, I think you’re acting defensively to a categorization of economic inquiry into political or cognitive biases rather than intentions to produce a neutral point of view.

We all fight different battles. That’s the work of intellectuals.

Your argument amounts to this: that study of the literature produced in order to determine bias within it, is somehow the same as practicing the investigation itself. And that practicing the art of philosophy (truth telling) is equivalent to the practice of identifying correlations in attempts to explain causes in a particular field.

This is the same as saying that the study of economic data provides no insight into disparate industries and regions.

The second error you’re falling into is to assume that the same methods cannot be employed in the service of reproductive, cognitive, political, or group evolutionary strategies from nothing more than selection bias.

The third error is that economics is one of the fields in which niche knowledge is not generalizable. In other words, the reason for the differences in surveys of economists on any given issue is that only the niche specialists in that issue have sufficient knowledge to respond. Why? because the reason we require economic analysis is that it’s counter-intuitive. So broad surveys of economists are generally less accurate that random polls of the population.

So it does not matter what methods are employed. It matters that individuals employing those methods possess biases that are expressed in their work, and that their opinions derived from their niche work are not generalizable outside of that niche.

I have for example, criticized mathematicians on the externalities produced by the false implications of their methods. But a mathematician does not consider externalities born of a verbal contrivance to be his responsibility. I can ask whether you think that is a question of economics or not.

But a very sophisticated mathematician will tell you the reality: that truth is not a matter for mathematicians – proof is. Truth is a matter for philosophers. Even that man will be uncomfortable with the notion that there exists no ‘mathematical reality’ any more than there exists a heaven, hell, or Camelot. Or that his use of ‘infinities of different sizes’ is nonsense analogy that has had external consequences.

I am not alone in my categorization of the ongoing battle between the leftists (Krugman/Delong), and the conservatives (Mankiw), and my posting is intended to provide a counter position to Krugman’s ‘dishonesty’ which Mankiw and others tend to point out regularly, and which cost Krugman his job.

The current debate over “Mathiness” in economics is in fact, caused by the properties I mention above: what are they solving for? This is not a question of innumeracy or error but one of seeking different ends.

But, academic economics fails to grasp that each field solves for something different by similar means. So it is not that Chicago errs, but that they attempt to define rules. It is not that Saltwaters err but they seek to define discretion that the public and industry find objectionable uses of power, which result in immoral ends. It is not that the politicians do not understand economics. It is that the public will not tolerate immorality. And it is not that the public is wrong to be intolerant of redistribution that produces measurable short and mid term gains at the expense of kith and kin.

So, either criticize the central argument or state that you cant. That’s the practice of science. 😉

That argument is that regardless of intentions and methods, the pattern of the research is yet another expression of reproductive strategy of the actor, rather than of a neutral point of view.

Cheers. 🙂