Monday , November 25 2024
Home / Lars P. Syll (page 431)
Lars Pålsson Syll
Professor at Malmö University. Primary research interest - the philosophy, history and methodology of economics.

Lars P. Syll

The problem with unjustified assumptions

The problem with unjustified assumptions An ongoing concern is that excessive focus on formal modeling and statistics can lead to neglect of practical issues and to overconfidence in formal results … Analysis interpretation depends on contextual judgments about how reality is to be mapped onto the model, and how the formal analysis results are to be mapped back into reality. But overconfidence in formal outputs is only to be expected when much labor has...

Read More »

What makes economics a science?

What makes economics a science? Well, if we are to believe most mainstream economists, models are what make economics a science. In a recent Journal of Economic Literature (1/2017) review of Dani Rodrik’s Economics Rules, renowned game theorist Ariel Rubinstein discusses Rodrik’s justifications for the view that “models make economics a science.” Although Rubinstein has some doubts about those justifications — models are not indispensable for telling good...

Read More »

Mainstream flimflam defender Wren-Lewis gets it wrong — again!

Mainstream flimflam defender Wren-Lewis gets it wrong — again! Again and again, Oxford professor Simon Wren-Lewis rides out to defend orthodox macroeconomic theory against attacks from heterodox critics. A couple of years ago, it was rational expectations, microfoundations, and representative agent modeling he wanted to save. And now he is back with new flimflamming against heterodox attacks and pluralist demands from economics students all over the world:...

Read More »

Textbooks problem — teaching the wrong things all too well

Textbooks problem — teaching the wrong things all too well It is well known that even experienced scientists routinely misinterpret p-values in all sorts of ways, including confusion of statistical and practical significance, treating non-rejection as acceptance of the null hypothesis, and interpreting the p-value as some sort of replication probability or as the posterior probability that the null hypothesis is true … It is shocking that these errors seem...

Read More »

Heterodoxy — necessary for the renewal of economics

Heterodoxy — necessary for the renewal of economics A sense of failure is, for all intents and purposes, being translated into a context of relative success requiring more limited changes – though these are still being seen as significant. Part of the reason that they are seen as significant is that changes from within mainstream economics do not have to be major in order to appear radical. It is our contention that heterodox economics is being...

Read More »

Analogue economies and reality

Analogue economies and reality Modelling by the construction of analogue economies is a widespread technique in economic theory nowadays … As Lucas urges, the important point about analogue economies is that everything is known about them … and within them the propositions we are interested in ‘can be formulated rigorously and shown to be valid’ … For these constructed economies, our views about what will happen are ‘statements of verifiable fact.’ The...

Read More »

Trumponomics: causes and consequences

Trumponomics: causes and consequences Real-world economics review issue no. 78 22 March 2017 Trumponomics: causes and consequences Trumponomics: everything to fear including fear itself? 3 Jamie Morgan Can Trump overcome secular stagnation? 20 James K. Galbraith Trump through a Polanyi lens: considering community well-being 28 Anne Mayhew Trump is Obama’s legacy. Will this break up the Democratic Party? 36 Michael Hudson Causes and consequences of...

Read More »

Your model is consistent? So what!

Your model is consistent? So what! In the realm of science it ought to be considered of little or no value to simply make claims about the model and lose sight of reality. There is a difference between having evidence for some hypothesis and having evidence for the hypothesis relevant for a given purpose. The difference is important because scientific methods tend to be good at addressing hypotheses of a certain kind and not others: scientific methods come...

Read More »