Posted by Eugene Volokh:
<i>New York Times</i> interviewer saddened by teaching of scientific theories:
[1]te-jik points to this [2]New York Times Magazine interview with a
Yale economics professor (thanks to [3]Clayton Cramer for the
pointer):
[Q:] As a professor of economics at Yale, you are known for
creating an econometric equation that has predicted presidential
elections with relative accuracy.
[A:] My latest prediction shows that Bush will receive 57.5 percent
of the two-party votes. . . .
[Q:] Why should we trust your equation, which seems unusually
reductive?
[A:] It has done well historically. The average mistake of the
equation is about 2.5 percentage points.
[Q:] In your book "Predicting Presidential Elections and Other
Things," you claim that economic growth and inflation are the only
variables that matter in a presidential race. Are you saying that
the war in Iraq will have no influence on the election?
[A:] Historically, issues like war haven't swamped the economics.
If the equation is correctly specified, then the chances that Bush
loses are very small. [Q:] But the country hasn't been this
polarized since the 60's, and voters seem genuinely engaged by
social issues like gay marriage and the overall question of a more
just society.
[A:] We throw all those into what we call the error term. In the
past, all that stuff that you think should count averages about 2.5
percent, and that is pretty small.
[Q:] It saddens me that you teach this to students at Yale, who
could be thinking about society in complex and meaningful ways. . .
.
It saddens a New York Times interviewer that an economics professor is
teaching students about what he thinks is a sound scientific theory.
Not that the professor is wrong, if he is (which would indeed be cause
for sadness). Not that voters are so focused on certain matters that
their behavior is so predictable (which some might approve of and some
disapprove of). She's sad that the professor is teaching students
about such behavior. Funny, I thought that understanding facts (if
they are facts) about human behavior is a meaningful addition to one's
thinking about society, even if they are facts that New York Times
reporters don't much like.
Of course, this also misses the fact that each class in a university
is supposed to focus on a particular subject, not deal with society in
all its complexity and depth of meaning. Doubtless students learn
about lots of other aspects of society in other classes, which may
intentionally omit econometrics and focus on other matters. Adding an
econometric analysis into the mix gives students a more complex and
meaningful picture of society than would be the case if one excluded
this analysis.
Oh, and here's something from later in the interview:
[Q:] Are you a Republican?
[A:] [Arch game theory humor omitted. -EV]
[Q:] I don't want to do game theory. I just want to know if you are
a Kerry supporter.
[A:] Backing away from game theory, which is kind of cute, I am a
Kerry supporter.
[Q:] I believe you entirely, although I'm a little surprised,
because your predictions implicitly lend support to Bush.
[A:] I am not attempting to be an advocate for one party or
another. I am attempting to be a social scientist trying to explain
voting behavior.
[Q:] But in the process you are shaping opinion. Predictions can be
self-confirming, because wishy-washy voters might go with the
candidate who is perceived to be more successful. . . .
Maybe the journalist is just trying to be provocative here, and the
questions don't reveal her own thinking. Still, it seems a bit odd
that the questions (1) express surprise that a scholar who is trying
to describe the world would reveal (not just in political editorials,
but in his scholarship or in his teaching) a truth that he himself
finds politically unwelcome, and (2) implicitly criticize the scholar
for expressing this truth (since this truth may, heaven forbid,
influence people to vote in a way that he dislikes).
References
1. http://tjic.com/blog/index_aug2004.php#15_Aug_2004_2
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/15/magazine/15QUESTIONS.html
3. http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2004_08_15_archive.html#109287218200659439
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
