Some economists like to believe (although this belief has blessedly faded in the recent decades) that economics is an edifice built on the rocks of mathematical theory and statistical empiricism, and everything else is superfluous fluff. McCloskey (1983) thoroughly strafed that conceit, pointing out in “The Rhetoric of Economics” that the research and analysis of economists is built on uncertain and subjective judgments, and often uses, among its rhetorical tools, analogy and metaphor, appeals to authority and to commonsense intuition, and the use of “toy models” counterbalanced with the choice of supposedly illustrative real-world episodes.
Economic arguments rooted purely in mathematical formalism or statistical analyses are superb at specifying the steps leading to the particular conclusion. However, cynical economists (but I repeat myself) know that a model can be built to illustrate any desired conclusion, and that if the data are tortured for long enough, they will confess to anything. Persuasiveness requires a multidimensional argument that reaches beyond formalism. As McCloskey (1983) wrote: “There is no good reason to to make ‘scientific’ as opposed to plausible statements.”
That’s from economist Timothy Taylor on the issue of editing economists (hat tip Professor David Henderson).
Phony and manipulated “tortured” models function as standard instruments used to justify social controls through public policies. Think anthropomorphic global warming, Keynesian stimulus, mercantilism and etc…
No comments:
Post a Comment