17 Apr 2013

The 'Science' of Economics

Deep sigh.
This follows on from my "Why Krugman is an Idiot" post horribly well.

You're safe. You don't have to read that one. In it I criticise the start point of Krugman's thought experiment as distorted to fit his conclusions. There you go. That was easy!

Well take a look at this then ...

Got that? A chunk of missing NZ data for whatever reason, that's royally messed up a currently widely respected and followed piece of economic research.

Tell that to the families and friends of the suicides in Greece.

Just one huge deep sigh at how we are being led increasingly by stupidity instead of ability.

My father was an educational researcher. It's a messy hard to explain field. Fundamentally though a lot of it rests on data, analysis and research of whichever area is under the microscope. What he did well, and seems to have rubbed off on me. Is respect for source data.

It's the same from instruments, through good old record decks right up to modern audio systems. The quality of source data is vital. If that's deformed, mangled, distorted in any way at all, then there is no way in hell you are going to make up for it no matter how good the analysis is that follows.

If done properly, the life of the educational researcher is a test of skills in that respect. The source data is often a mix of quantitative and qualitative data. The funding for time spent on gathering it is often as little as humanly possible. Each scrap of data is like a tiny nugget of gold. One inept field researcher can demolish vast swathes of valid input.


Where am I going with this? Just that the art of good research and solid conclusion based on it seems to be slowly fading away from the world. Outside the world of the purely scientific, it seems anything goes as long as it pays. Well actually. Even within the world of the scientific. Look at climate change deniers and who funds their papers.

Just another facepalm night in a world full of fail.

No comments:

Post a Comment