In biology, see the hoax perpetrated by Sir Cyril Burt on intelligence testing and heredity discussed by Stephen Jay Gould in _The Mismeasure of Man_. It lasted for some number of decades. Also, there was the Piltdown hoax in biological anthropology. Charles Brown >>> Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/11/99 01:14PM >>> Jim Devine wrote: >At 10:42 PM 5/10/99 -0700, Peter D wrote: >>...We are kidding ourselves if we think that the reason there are fewer >research scandals in economics than, say, medicine is that economists are >more honest and scrupulous. ... > >One of the big scandals of the 1980s was Martin Feldstein's erroneous use >of a computerized model to trash Social Security. But he was rewarded for >his work. > >Similarly, Robert Fogel produced econometric nonsense in the 1970s (with >Stanley Engerman, the infamous book TIME ON THE CROSS) and was rewarded >with an endowed chair in economic history at Harvard. > >I don't think the problem is with econometrics as much as with the >economics profession. That profession can spin gold into dirty straw. This >is not just true with econometrics (which is hardly gold) but also with the >writings of Adam Smith and mathematics. In their book, Card & Krueger recount the history of previous studies of the minimum wage, which were pretty scandalous. But nothing happened. In fact, they reflect, rather indiscreetly for respectable economists, on "publication bias" in the profession - that is, anything that said minimum wage=job loss would get accepted, and anything that didn't wouldn't. Natural science may be corrupt - a servant of power, money, and orthodoxy - but I don't think you could sustain this kind of untruth for 30 years in physics or biology, could you? Doug
