I like how Kling thinks. Maybe it would be better if his views challenged my beliefs more rather than filling gaps but I learn a lot from his insights. He is a little more pessimistic than I'd prefer.
Two thoughts here:
1. Nevermind that Kling notes how mathematical models can be useful:
"But my guess is that the academic conversation in …
I like how Kling thinks. Maybe it would be better if his views challenged my beliefs more rather than filling gaps but I learn a lot from his insights. He is a little more pessimistic than I'd prefer.
Two thoughts here:
1. Nevermind that Kling notes how mathematical models can be useful:
"But my guess is that the academic conversation in economics would be much improved without the math."
Do we want better conversations or more advancement? While some models and model result may be wrong or misleading, this is something that can eventually be identified. The harm can be overcome. But not all math is misused. I'm not at all confident what is lost by not having models can be overcome in their absence. It seems hard to believe adding tools and approaches to gaining insight is a net negative.
2 And now I go little in the opposite direction on models.
"Using math can help you avoid making claims that are internally inconsistent."
I suppose this has to be true but I'm not sure how often. It brings to mind a quote I don't know the source, "economist know the price of everything and the value of nothing." Models seem far more useful for prices than value. Making it even worse for models, Kahneman and Tversky made it pretty clear that framing changes our values and priorities. I don't see models catching any of this. At least not much and not well.
I like how Kling thinks. Maybe it would be better if his views challenged my beliefs more rather than filling gaps but I learn a lot from his insights. He is a little more pessimistic than I'd prefer.
Two thoughts here:
1. Nevermind that Kling notes how mathematical models can be useful:
"But my guess is that the academic conversation in economics would be much improved without the math."
Do we want better conversations or more advancement? While some models and model result may be wrong or misleading, this is something that can eventually be identified. The harm can be overcome. But not all math is misused. I'm not at all confident what is lost by not having models can be overcome in their absence. It seems hard to believe adding tools and approaches to gaining insight is a net negative.
2 And now I go little in the opposite direction on models.
"Using math can help you avoid making claims that are internally inconsistent."
I suppose this has to be true but I'm not sure how often. It brings to mind a quote I don't know the source, "economist know the price of everything and the value of nothing." Models seem far more useful for prices than value. Making it even worse for models, Kahneman and Tversky made it pretty clear that framing changes our values and priorities. I don't see models catching any of this. At least not much and not well.