Andrew Gelman — Classical hypothesis testing is really really hard

Take the test. 😁 (Just kidding unless you are a statistician.)

Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
Classical hypothesis testing is really really hard
Andrew Gelman | Professor of Statistics and Political Science and Director of the Applied Statistics Center, Columbia University

Against Friedman: Why Assumptions Matter

I have previously discussed Milton Friedman’s infamous 1953 essay, ‘The Methodology of Positive Economics.’ The basic argument of Friedman’s essay is the unrealism of a theory’s assumptions should not matter; what matters are the predictions made by the theory. A truly realistic economic theory would have to incorporate so many aspects of humanity that it would be impractical or computationally impossible to do so. Hence, we must make simplifications, and cross check the models against the evidence to see if we are close enough to the truth. The internal details of the models, as long as they are consistent, are of little importance.

The essay, or some variant of it, is a fallback for economists when questioned about the assumptions of their models. Even though most economists would not endorse a strong interpretation of Friedman’s essay, I often come across the defence ’it’s just an abstraction, all models are wrong’ if I question, say, perfect competition, utility, or equilibrium. I summarise the arguments against Friedman’s position below.

Unlearning Economics
Against Friedman: Why Assumptions Matter

Mike Kimel — Why Much of the Population Thinks Economists are Charlatans

What happens if you do the same thing in another field? What happens if to a guy who peddles Lysenkoism in Biology? Think they'll make him Dean of a prominent Medical School? A physicist who makes her life work debunking the Michelson Morley experiment ain't gonna go far either. Obvious charlatans in biology or physics or chemistry get treated like charlatans by people who call themselves biologists, physicists and chemists, even those who work in different parts of the field. People who call themselves economists (whether macroeconomists or otherwise) sit on panels and attend conferences with the obvious charlatans. They shake hands with the obvious charlatans, they don't spit on the floor and turn their back on the obvious charlatans, and most damning of all, they don't refer to them as obvious charlatans. And meanwhile, the obvious charlatans do very well. Fudging and shading the data can pay very well, especially if one is well spoken and looks presentable
Angry Bear
Why Much of the Population Thinks Economists are Charlatans
Mike Kimel | Principal Consultant at Analytic Economics