Usually I'm a big fan of Ironman at Political Calculations. I've been vaguely following the Paul Romer "mathiness" thread so I read this post with interest:
Economist Paul Romer recently made waves in his profession after he recognized the increasing use of misleading math by others in his profession, most often in the attempt to pursue a political or ideological agenda, has gotten to the point where it is obstructing progress in the field.
Ironman asks:
How can we cut through the sleight of hand? ...
How might that be done in economics? We would suggest that the three imperatives, or rather, "economics in 10 words", that Peter Gordon uses to introduce economics to new students might provide an effective starting point for challenging those economists whose misuse of math and use of misleading data discredit both themselves and their profession:
Many econ professors know that some students only pay attention for the first few minutes of any course. So, some immediately tell them that it all boils down to three imperatives (ten little words). 1) at what cost? 2) compared to what? and 3) how do you know?
We think that it will be the "compared to what" and "how do you know" parts of those three imperatives that will most often trip up the deliberately deceptive economist. And to that end, we can apply our checklist for how to detect junk science for going about challenging the flawed work of such politically or ideologically-driven hacks.
I continued to be interested so I followed the link. At the bottom of How to Detect Junk Science I found this:
Sometimes, those claims you're hearing for the first time are things that have actually been around in one form or another for a long time. Here's a short list of sites that have already done the trustworthiness legwork for you!
- Snopes.com - The Internet's premier reference for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors and misinformation.
- Quackwatch - If it's medical or health-related and not for real, you'll likely find it here.
- Climate Skeptic - Like Quackwatch, but aimed at the poorly supported aspects of global climate change science.
- JunkScience.com - Steven Milloy's site surveying a number of highly questionable scientific claims made in today's media reporting.
- ...
Fun! So I clicked on the links and and ended up very disappointed. The "Junk Science" site seems to be scientific results that don't pass through the appropriate ideological filter. For example (... how to lift sustainability’s real appeal):
Harrumph! “Sustainability” is a term devoid of any real meaning. What people basically want is to improve their lot and hopefully that of others too (as long as it isn’t personally detrimental to do so). Another problem with polling, especially on touchy-feely nonsense like the environment and sustainability is “contingent valuation” – what people say they would sacrifice for X is significantly different from what they are really willing to pay.
And another (Americans support national clean-energy standard):
Oh really? Check out “contingent valuation”. What people say they are content to pay (in the future) and what people are really willing to pay are often not the same thing.
And still another (Greens exploit Wall Street bailout):
[Henry Paulson] could even claim — through the economic device of “contingent valuation” — that the acquired land has more value as pristine public land than as, say, an energy or logging project.
Contingent valuation uses opinion surveys to value intangible assets for which there is no market, such as scenic views and crystal-clear air.
Respondents are asked hypothetical questions like, “How much would you pay to preserve a seashore view from oil drilling?” or “How much is it worth to keep a forest pristine and un-logged?”
Though the whole process is pretend — the respondents know they won’t actually spend any of their own money for this preservation — the government uses the method to establish monetary values of preserved lands.
It doesn’t take too much imagination to see how contingent valuation could be used to gin up phony bailout profits through land preservation.
Apparently, the very real issue of hypothetical bias makes "contingent valuation" -- just add scare quotes -- junk! Needless to say, someone interested in science, and not junk, might consider the literature that examines conditions under which hypothetical bias tends to be a problem versus when it does not. Needless to say.
