tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post5257295102702344656..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Bob Shiller and Greg Mankiw stick up for ScienceNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-16346177788964348942011-06-12T20:49:32.886-04:002011-06-12T20:49:32.886-04:00as you probably know yet, you might be also intere...as you probably know yet, you might be also interested in this following reading as well (among many others of course):<br /><br />http://www.ederman.com/new/docs/models-web.pdf<br /><br />and/or<br /><br />http://www.ederman.com/new/docs/fmm.pdf<br /><br />The argument/discussion in those readings might apply for understanding -the science part- of other econ fields e.g. macro-econ. <br />--<br />meteAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-15441301557194857172011-05-27T10:57:32.630-04:002011-05-27T10:57:32.630-04:00I could not agree more about the need for empirics...I could not agree more about the need for empirics/observation in appraising theory, as well as the perpetual existence of merited doubt/uncertainty. <br /><br />In terms of the need for new data, I think the major void relates to an issue Mankiw mentioned, namely data on actual expectations (rather than simply assuming perfect foresight, RE or strict rules etc. in empirical work). This can aid us in answering several of the questions he poses. Inflation expectations data for example has become important to central banks, and the BLS gives some weight to the consensus forecast in its preliminary estimates. Shiller also did some work collecting expectations about home price appreciation via survey. Frankel with Froot, Chinn and Dominiguez, as well as Frydman and Goldberg have done several papers attempting to understand financial markets using data on traders' actual forecasts. This seems a very promising direction for the field.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-75806327322682757952011-05-23T20:56:38.810-04:002011-05-23T20:56:38.810-04:00I think you may be giving Mankiw too much credit, ...I think you may be giving Mankiw too much credit, and not just for the reasons of partisan tendentiousness that Barry suggests. Skepticism has a place -- a much used place -- in Economics, but it is a solipsistic skepticism, which tests not with objective measurement, but with subjective plausibility. <br /><br />Solipsistic skepticism, which is pervasive in economics, fits in nicely with the valuing of models for their production of "insight" and "good stories", etc., as you put it. Such solipsistic skepticism becomes a key thread in the fabric of an academic economist's defense against observation, experience and evidence. Rather than the beginning of wisdom, a Socratic admission of ignorance, in this subjective-not-objective context, opens a door to a bizarro-world, in which counterfactuals are evidence and Dr. Pangloss knows best by knowing nothing at all.<br /><br />Shiller, I think, genuinely sees "markets" as institutionalized social mechanisms, and wants to investigate how they work, in a way analogous to the way an 18th or 19th century physicist might want to investigate electricity or fluid flow. I'm not so sure about Mankiw.<br /><br />Seeing the world as a functioning mechanism is a prerequisite to an effective curiosity about how it works. Many economists, including Mankiw, are too committed to an economics of moral meanings, imperatives and parables, to get curious in that right way. Solipsistic skepticism fits in well with the economics of moral meanings, and proud ignorance.<br /><br />Shiller, to his credit, investigated housing markets and housing prices. You would not have to look far to find economists, who would, instead, (mis-)use, say, the EMH, to justify a Socratic pose, skeptical of anyone's ability to "second-guess" a market price, or "spot a bubble". I think you'd find Mankiw likely to deploy his "skepticism" to obscure, rather than clarify. (See this from 2000:<br />http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/40_april00.html)Bruce Wilderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09631065564839959376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-31190935478255267832011-05-11T15:50:06.921-04:002011-05-11T15:50:06.921-04:00Philosophers of science & biology will tell yo...Philosophers of science & biology will tell you that physicists are among the last to ask about how "science" works -- they all have a tiny set of examples from which they extrapolate, and they are famously unsophisticated and unselfaware of the own background assumptions and practices.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-60300542480165630912011-05-09T13:39:15.822-04:002011-05-09T13:39:15.822-04:00I disagree. As you have pointed out, Mankiw is se...I disagree. As you have pointed out, Mankiw is selectively skeptical.<br />He's analogous to some Birther who<br />suddenly questions ordinary paperwork when it's to his partisan advantage.Barry DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735814736387033844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-65267642558634581852011-05-09T04:44:18.852-04:002011-05-09T04:44:18.852-04:00here is one more economist (leading game theorist)...here is one more economist (leading game theorist) expressing doubts:<br />"Dilemmas of an Economic Theorist"<br />arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/papers/74.pdfjmgnoreply@blogger.com