Over the years, I have become increasingly skeptical of the power of statistical techniques to measure causation in complex systems like economics... I realized in a way I hadn’t before, that how we feel about the reliability of statistical results lines up incredibly neatly with our political and ideological biases... name an empirical study that uses sophisticated statistical techniques that was so well done, it ended a controversy and created a consensus--a consensus where former opponents of one viewpoint had to concede they were wrong because of the quality of the empirical work... The pragmatists (Peirce and James) and Hayek understood the dangers of rationality and what is essentially fake science...
Risposta 1... If Not Data, What?
Risposta 2... I will cite a few possible examples...
Risposta 3... we have confirmation bias, so even when we should change our minds we come up with excuses not to believe contrary results...
Risposta 4... What exactly counts as "ending a controversy and creating a consensus"? Does every active researcher in the world have veto power?... I modify Russ's challenge thusly: name a body of empirical work that is so well done, it won over two-thirds of active researchers and induced half of the unconvinced to quietly give up or recant?
