On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Andrew Brown wrote: > 1) Whether the only game or not, the trouble I find with typical > econometric methods (typically based on multiple regression), is > that the theoretical assumptions are *always* broken... It's difficult to do econometrics right -- but doing it right involves rigorous testing for violation of the required statistical properties of the error term, and the use of alternative estimators where needed. > 2) Does 'calibration' count as another game so suggesting there is > another game in town after all? I think you're right, calibration is an alternative -- for researchers who are certain in advance that their theory is right and who just want to quantify parameters rather than test hypotheses. > 3) Why do you (Allin) reject Tony Lawson's characterisation of > neoclassical economics as deductivist? As you know, Lawson's > arguments tie econometrics closely to neoclassical economics, if > they are accepted. I don't think I disagree with Tony Lawson's characterization of neoclassical economics as such. I'm less persuaded by his critique of econometrics. This is a rather complex subject; I wrote about it in "Realism, Regularities and Prediction" (Review of Social Economy, LVI/3, Fall 1998). Allin Cottrell.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Dec 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EST