tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post119534817789274501..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Two interesting observations on this economath discussionEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-19078561287245134072013-08-28T19:09:14.498-04:002013-08-28T19:09:14.498-04:00I don't think the problem so much is "mat...I don't think the problem so much is "math" per se as opposed to "useless math that adds nothing of value, obscures whatever actual insight is in the model itself, and only acts as a signaling device". The last one is probably the aspect that people get annoyed with the most. <br /><br />I've seen papers in their "Working Paper" version which develop a pretty sensible and straight forward model, where the intuition about the phenomenon in question takes center stage and is transparent. And then I've seen the actually published version of the same Working Paper where it's pretty obvious that either the editor of a particular journal or the referees made the authors complicate it unnecessarily to fit it into the "how modern economics is done" mold. I'm most aware of it in macro but I don't think micro gets off easy either. And no, I'm not speaking of personal experience, just the experience of watching the kind of papers that get published in top journals over the years.<br /><br />Simple example - why do an OLG model if there's no integenerational transfers? Why assume weird functional forms for utility and labor supply when it has no effect on the results? There's a lot of stuff like that in the papers once you sit down and work your way through them. Incidentally, this is actually a good bit of the reason why Paul Krugman's "most of it's already in the IS/LM" model is true.YouNotSneaky!https://www.blogger.com/profile/06378267534638281151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-13481359515086742392013-08-28T09:51:18.821-04:002013-08-28T09:51:18.821-04:00Do you remember this discussion we had a while ago...Do you remember this discussion we had a while ago, Daniel Kuehn?<br /><br />http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2012/07/heterodox-and-mainstream-honey-and.html?showComment=1343570695343#c3867451174329755772Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-19934301076578664492013-08-28T00:50:54.943-04:002013-08-28T00:50:54.943-04:00The Krugman article is pretty good, but algebra vs...The Krugman article is pretty good, but algebra vs literary is pretty much a slam dunk for algebra. Many making the complaint against economath (or something like it) are using sound "mathematical reasoning" and actually catching most of the errors that are easily disproven. The typical complaints are the Feynman "fooling yourself", over-aggregation, drawing too big a conclusion from empirical data that contradicts sound reasoning, models that are too complex, excess explaining away of data, conflating statistical significance with relevance. Complaints found in Hayek's Pretense of Knowledge, Bowerk's One Good Model. <br /><br />One problem is that intuition needs to be deeper than surface level. Deep intuition that challenges your own prejudices is necessary. <br /><br />DK- " So I don't think we should lower our math expectations - if anything we should raise our literary expectations." <br /><br />I agree with this, as long as it's logical (vs creative) literary skills you are screening for. Ken Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-78885590834165049582013-08-25T12:52:06.074-04:002013-08-25T12:52:06.074-04:00Agreed, Daniel. I actually can't even seem to ...Agreed, Daniel. I actually can't even seem to figure out what people even really mean by 'economath.' Separating hyperplanes? Statistical theory? Differential equations? Carried over from blog to blog, I don't think that anyone has been wrestling with the same definition.<br /><br />Also, as with many things, Krugman wrote about this much, much better back in 1996: http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/culture.htmlPseudonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-62834997639018420092013-08-25T04:32:13.444-04:002013-08-25T04:32:13.444-04:00I think this, from Tim Johnson, is by far the best...I think this, from Tim Johnson, is by far the best contribution so far (& Noah Smith agrees):<br /><br />http://magic-maths-money.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/oedipus-and-difficult-relationship.html<br />Kevin Donoghuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07534540865029864916noreply@blogger.com