Home > Uncategorized > Why every econ paper should come with a warning label!

Why every econ paper should come with a warning label!

from Lars Syll

e8f9b7fec248157b1989085deaa05dde-d7bu3k6It should be part of the academic competences of trained economists to be able to be clear about what their models are for; what the models are about; what the models are capable of doing, and what not; how reliable the models are; what sorts of criticisms have been levelled against the models and how the criticisms have been responded; what alternative models there are; etc. The challenge is not easy, and it is clear that it has not been met with sufficient exuberance and success. The capacity of writing “warning labels” would be part of the needed professional competence. Such warning labels would alert the relevant audiences to the capabilities and limitations of the models …

Exceptional amongst the social sciences is the role of the economics discipline in contemporary society, the intellectual and political authority economics enjoys regardless of its failures. Above, I cited Colander’s confession, “we pretend we understand more than we do” and we could add that economists do so in order to – or with the consequence of – protecting and promoting their socially acknowledged authority. In the worst case, there is a nightmarish scenario on which the more economists are consulted for policy advice, the more they need to pretend to know, and so the higher the likelihood of policies going astray. Avoiding the nightmare would require some smart restructuring of the institutions of the economics discipline.            Uskali Mäki

  1. ghholtham
    March 6, 2020 at 10:47 am

    Agreed

  2. Meta Capitalism
    March 6, 2020 at 11:35 am

    Because the great controversies of the past often reach into modern science, many current arguments cannot be fully understood unless one understands their history.
    — ERNST MAYR 1982, 1, in McCloskey and Ziliak 2008)

    .
    The study of economics and economic history must go hand in hand to see how we got to where we are today. To profit from failure takes humility. To treasure exceptions takes a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. That is sometimes a goal at odds with textbook and literature-only economics.
    .

    Nevertheless, if I may throw out a word of council to beginners, it is: Treasure your exceptions! When there are none, the work gets so dull that no one cares to carry it further. Keep them always uncovered and in sight. Exceptions are like the rough brickwork of a growing building which tells that there is more to come and shows what the next construction it to be.
    .
    — William Bateson (1908)
    .
    To understand evolution we must first understand the historical development of ideas on evolution. But to understand its history, we must first understand evolution. The paradox implies that the study of evolution and of its history must go hand in hand. (Forsdyke 2008: xi)
    .
    (….) For a scientist looking at history there are three overriding double questions: What did he (she) know and when did he know it? What did he think and when did he think it? What did he do and why did he do it? Answers to these questions give us information on process — the process of scientific discovery. If the elements of that process have remained essentially unchanged since Bateson’s day — an assertion assumed and not argued here — than a better understanding of ways this outstanding contributor to scientific progress operated may help us improve the process of discovery as it now operates. (Cock, Alan G. and Forsdyke Donald R. Treasure Your Exceptions: The Science and Life of William Bateson. New York: Springer; 2008; p. xi; xvii.)

    • Craig
      March 6, 2020 at 5:16 pm

      A study of the SIGNATURES of historical paradigm changes (not just the historical process itself as with Kuhn) would do more for progress in economics than all of the repetitive name dropping, iconoclastic obsession with describing only the problems and failure to come into a new unit of time regarding the study.

      Endlessly ruminating over details already resolved by new insights is the epitome of rigid orthodoxy and the definition of paradigm duncery. Craig

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.