61–70 of 135 posts
Worth noting that The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is not an actual Nobel Prize. It was established by a central bank so they could award people who justify the existence of central banks.
Esther Duflo is the most obviously deserving Nobel Prize in Economics pick in decades. Major substantive contributions to development economics coupled with being absolutely the vanguard of the credibility revolution. The article seems to motivate criticism of RCTs in only the barest manner: "what of external validity?" No shit, Sherlock, which is why the credibility revolution also argues for frequent and cross-cont…
Do astrophysicists use controlled trials to study the universe?
Esther Duflo is the most obviously deserving Nobel Prize in Economics pick in decades. Major substantive contributions to development economics coupled with being absolutely the vanguard of the credibility revolution. The article seems to motivate criticism of RCTs in only the barest manner: "what of external validity?" No shit, Sherlock, which is why the credibility revolution also argues for frequent and cross-cont…
Esther Duflo is the most obviously deserving Nobel Prize in Economics pick in decades. Major substantive contributions to development economics coupled with being absolutely the vanguard of the credibility revolution. The article seems to motivate criticism of RCTs in only the barest manner: "what of external validity?" No shit, Sherlock, which is why the credibility revolution also argues for frequent and cross-cont…
I am in general skeptical that statistical experiments will give use much insight into complex behavior. I think building theoritical models is the better approach to study complex systems, since then we will can explain why a certain behaviour shall manifest. Do astrophysicists use controlled trials to study the universe?
Esther Duflo is the most obviously deserving Nobel Prize in Economics pick in decades. Major substantive contributions to development economics coupled with being absolutely the vanguard of the credibility revolution. The article seems to motivate criticism of RCTs in only the barest manner: "what of external validity?" No shit, Sherlock, which is why the credibility revolution also argues for frequent and cross-cont…
Abhijit Banerjee was her doctoral advisor. He tutored her not the other way around. If you get any chance to read their famous book Poor Economics, you will find almost 70% RCTs were conducted in India. Classical Indian bias.
These critics should spend some time speaking to the medical research community. These aren't new questions. It kinda reveals the deep underlying assumptions; "of course we can know the results of these interventions in advance, so we must base our ethics on that"... ok, but if you already know the effects, why are you testing them? You're testing them because you don't know. Unfortunately, there's no royal road to s…
We didn't send the man to the Moon on the basis of statistical experiments, we knew it was possible even before the first screw was put in on the rocket.
I am fearful that depending on experiments would lead to the same dire credibility issues that plague experimental psychology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economics has an identity crisis. It is trying to be a science when it is an art/humanity. Rather than embracing it's nature it is trying to be what it is not. It's like Christianity trying to be a science via creation science. It simply does not work.
Thanks for this glib comment, it must be true since you asserted it. Frankly what I find most annoying about this comment is the implicit claim that humans are so complex that we can't possibly study it; that our existing scientific method is inadequate to describe economics. Unlike any art economics can make predictions, and we can test the validity of such predictions. That our models are insufficient right now doe…
I've always been a bit uneasy about economics because people's behavior depends on their beliefs, and their behavior as economic agents especially depends on their beliefs about the the economic theory that motivated the design of their habitat.
I expect that if a population that grew up in a system designed under assumption X and happened to eat well and always have a roof, then they will behave in a way that confirms theories compatible with X.
On the other hand, if they experienced extreme economic strife under leadership that believes in the validity of X, then--as data points--they're more likely to influence economic theory testing in the opposite way.
How can you know whether your predictions are correct because they're objectively true about human behavior, versus them being correct because your sample set has been influenced by the same economic theory that motivated the prediction in the first place?
Is statistics really so powerful that it can eliminate the circularity from the situation?
Economics continues to try and reinvent itself. I’m curious how the example of an RCT in deworming schedules for children counts as Economics. This seems like a field in its death throes. Nobels for ‘credibility research’?
The effect size of an intervention (deworming) on a measured outcome (test scores) is, almost by definition, its efficiency. And that's within economic's wheelhouse if you're studying paper clip manufacturing or schools. But, ultimately, I think the researchers would probably answer with something closer to "I don't care if it's economics. I consider it both interesting and relevant", and so would the Nobel judges.