Well, onto the substance of this post. I'm an economics student, so, naturally, pretending I'm a scientist is a hobby of mine. I find both the theoretical and empirical aspects of economics endlessly fascinating. More importantly, however, I enjoy the interaction (or, better yet, the conflict) between them. With that in mind, I'll post the scope of "The Econometric Society" found in the constitution (and pretend like I'm not the nth person to do so):
"The Econometric Society is an international society for the advancement of
economic theory in its relation to statistics and mathematics. The Society shall
operate as a completely disinterested, scientific organization without political,
social, financial, or nationalistic bias. Its main object shall be to promote studies
that aim at a unification of the theoretical-quantitative and empirical-quantitative
approach to economic problems and that are penetrated by constructive and
rigorous thinking similar to that which has come to dominate in the natural
sciences. Any activity which promises ultimately to further such unification of
theoretical and factual studies in economics shall be within the sphere of interest of
the Society."
economic theory in its relation to statistics and mathematics. The Society shall
operate as a completely disinterested, scientific organization without political,
social, financial, or nationalistic bias. Its main object shall be to promote studies
that aim at a unification of the theoretical-quantitative and empirical-quantitative
approach to economic problems and that are penetrated by constructive and
rigorous thinking similar to that which has come to dominate in the natural
sciences. Any activity which promises ultimately to further such unification of
theoretical and factual studies in economics shall be within the sphere of interest of
the Society."
As Robert Lucas would put it, that's the "bread-and-butter stuff in the hard sciences." I couldn't agree more. Similar to what Marshall would say about supply and demand, when it comes to which side is more important, you might as well be wondering which arm on a pair of scissors cuts the paper. They're mutually dependent. Too much empirical work and you have endless amounts of data and relations which you don't understand. Too much theory and you end up with assumptions and conclusions that are so detached from reality that you might as well be writing fiction. Theoretical models formally lay out assumptions and conclusions to organize the world, and empirical data beats the living shit out of these models. Together they gain ground.
But, notice the use of the word "quantitative." It's synonymous with the word "mathematical" in this context, and, as you can see, It's pervasive in both sides of the spectrum. Whether empirical or theoretical, math is omnipresent. This is incredibly important. As popular as mindless bumper stickers like "People aren't numbers!" are, there just isn't any credibility to them. This is as real world as it gets, and you need math to make it work. It's not pedantic dick-measuring on the parts of ivory tower academics to impress each other with how long their equations are. Yet, that's not something that's easily sold to non-economists, and some self-proclaimed economists either.
However, that's probably something I'll talk about later. As for now this should set the tone. I'll try and keep the topics diverse and interesting, but I can't always promise that. Furthermore, once I figure out convenient ways of putting math code into this blog, it's game over for you guys. Still, I'll try and keep it non-technical and interesting for all those people out there who aren't reading this right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment