...people attack positive claims by asserting that the people who make those claims are driven by normative agendas (rather than supposing that normative agendas are set based on evidence from positive science).
And I also hate it when actual normative agendas are distorted to make people look like outlandish ideologues.
That's all.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
You mean Krugman, don't you?
ReplyDeletehttp://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/wir-haben-auch-rentner/
I used to feel the same way about attacking scientific claims (I suppose that is what you mean by "positive") by pointing out the claimant's normative agenda. It struck me as a kind of ad hominem. But now I think that it is valid to consider the source. For instance, do you trust the studies about the efficacy of a drug that we sponsored by the maker of the drug? There are too many ways that bias can creep in, or, even worse, fraud or omitting contrary data. And that is even if the researcher is conscientious.
ReplyDeleteConsider the recent R&R affair. I do not, myself, think that they were consciously misleading. But their spread sheet error was in favor of their agenda, as was the data they omitted, as was their decision to weight heavily one year's data for New Zealand. As was their decision not to disclose their weighting in their original paper. It is hard not to think that their agenda did not influence those decisions, consciously or not.
Oops. One too many "not"s. Should be
DeleteIt is hard not to think that their agenda influenced those decisions, consciously or not.
If you disagree with someone, it's their "agenda" or better yet their "ideology" which blinds them to the glorious truth of your opinions.
ReplyDeleteLet's suppose for the sake of argument that Chinese people have higher average IQ than Irish people. If the evidence supporting this claim was coming from a notoriously rabid hater of the Irish who it turns out is being paid by the Chinese government, would it invalidate any of the evidence? Obviously not. You might even say that prejudices of that sort could be helpful to the advancement of knowledge - they spur people into researching thorny and taboo topics!
Daniel, I share your frustration that the default assumption is that people believe first and then find evidence to prove that belief, rather than assuming the other way round. Is that bad faith? Deliberate smear? Projection? Skullduggery?
I deal with this problem by presuming everyone is making normative claims most of the time. Here's my (wink, wink) scientific study on the minimum wage (hint, hint).
I'm not sure why you feel so strongly about that. Don't you find some arguments made against interest more persuasive? This is just the flip side.
ReplyDeleteLOL
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I was just complaining about the same thing recently.
Well, not exactly the same thing, but similar. I was doing a positive analysis and people just kept arguing normatively. Some people just have a hard time distinguishing between ought and is.
DeleteAnon beat me to it, though I had planned on linking to Krugman's recent NY Review of austerity books.
ReplyDelete1. Yep - lots of austerity researchers that have honest, scientific intentions that some people criticize that I like to think I have a track record of backing up (at least on that point), but...
Delete2. With respect to anonymous's comment... I don't think there are very many rentiers doing careful positive analysis of macroeconomics!! After all - saying "don't tar researchers by asserting that they've got normative motives" is not the same thing as saying "nobody ever has normative motives". I have normative motives, after all. But I feel pretty responsible in distinguishing between when I'm making a normative claim and when I'm making a positive claim. Certainly I make a good faith effort on that count, even when I slip.