Comments on: The Short Run, Humility, and Conservatism in Modern Antitrust Economics http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/255 Notes from the intersection of law, society, technology, economics, and culture Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:53:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Ben Samuel Nelson http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/255#comment-2534 Ben Samuel Nelson Sun, 30 Jul 2006 03:29:15 +0000 http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/255#comment-2534 It's all a question of what kind of bridge one is trying to sell. The social science isn't itself necessarily ideological. In at least some instances, the data may be relatively non-ideological when it is presented to important persons (like Congress). But it can and will still be interpreted this or that way for ideological purposes. Example -- in reports for the 2005 Social Security faux-crisis both methodological pessimism and optimism were charted so that people could get a picture of how the future may pan out given certain trends. Of course, certain people would emphasize either the pessimistic forecast or emphasize the median, to the exclusion of the other, depending on what they wanted to persuade people of. If it suited their rhetorical purposes, a dishonest person might engage in methodological optimism one day with the utmost sense of confidence, and gloomy conservatism the next day. None of the epistemic options are necessarily ideological, and if they're used consistently by the party in question regardless of their ideological inclinations, then those epistemic views can be understood and maybe even respected (though one might ultimately disagree with their point of view). But if their opinions on epistemology vary according to the weather, or are applied arbitrarily to some issues and not others, then that's totally a case of political ideology infecting worldview. Ultimately though it's all about what's prudent and what makes for good economics. If I hear anything on that I'll post up. It’s all a question of what kind of bridge one is trying to sell. The social science isn’t itself necessarily ideological. In at least some instances, the data may be relatively non-ideological when it is presented to important persons (like Congress). But it can and will still be interpreted this or that way for ideological purposes.

Example — in reports for the 2005 Social Security faux-crisis both methodological pessimism and optimism were charted so that people could get a picture of how the future may pan out given certain trends. Of course, certain people would emphasize either the pessimistic forecast or emphasize the median, to the exclusion of the other, depending on what they wanted to persuade people of. If it suited their rhetorical purposes, a dishonest person might engage in methodological optimism one day with the utmost sense of confidence, and gloomy conservatism the next day.

None of the epistemic options are necessarily ideological, and if they’re used consistently by the party in question regardless of their ideological inclinations, then those epistemic views can be understood and maybe even respected (though one might ultimately disagree with their point of view). But if their opinions on epistemology vary according to the weather, or are applied arbitrarily to some issues and not others, then that’s totally a case of political ideology infecting worldview.

Ultimately though it’s all about what’s prudent and what makes for good economics. If I hear anything on that I’ll post up.

]]>