"Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you
use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/
It is incredibly naive to say that physical scientists stole all of the easy problems. It is probably more meaningful to say that weaker physical scientists stole all the low hanging fruit. But then there is a clearly defined hierarchy of problems in the physical sciences when it comes to what is important, and that is why Einstein is revered but many others are not.
We should not be surprised at all if Nate Silver misses the results at times. After all, the domains he deals with are probably not governed by laws even in a statistical sense (that does not mean statistical analysis has no role to play).
In the old days when I took my econometrics course, OLS and all that stuff was disposed off rather quickly and we were told to concentrate on building a structural model of the problem domain, study it, derive from it the reduced form model and so on. I think those days are gone, and these days most (not all) feel quite satisfied with a single equation model. The concept of a rich model to represent mathematically some aspect of nature, the hallmark of physical sciences borrowed in to the social sciences, has just abut disappeared. In the physical sciences, usually you start with a system of equations (differential/difference) and ultimately come up with a solution that is very easy to comprehend. In accounting we start with an equation and end up with a cartload of statistical mumbo jumbo.
In the physical sciences there is a clear distinction made between those who model and those who test them. Theoretical physicists work with mathematical models, but experimental physicists just verify them in nature. Nevertheless, the two collaborate in rather peculiar ways so that the science can advance (I have given instances of this in earlier postings). This enables theoreticians to hypothesize things that have not even been shown to exist. Bosons were conjectured by Satyen Bose with Einstein in the 1920s, but experiments to confirm their existence is now becoming possible 40 years after the death of Bose.
In accounting, on the other hand, we all pretend to do both with the result that we have perverse incentives to claim advances in both. We do not recognize that the skills needed for theoretical and empirical/experimental research are very different and rarely does one come across a person who can do justice to both.
Most sciences see this dichotomy between theoretical and experimental/empirical aspects of research but collaborate in ways that help the domain. When I switched to Computing towards the tail end of my career I found the way these two collaborate absolutely fascinating. I wish there was more of that in accounting.
Incidentally Keynes was a mathematical tripos student, and graduated twelfth wrangler at Cambridge. His thesis was in mathematics (Treatise on Probability, a classic). )Unfortunately, he lacked the genius in mathematics and so chose Economics as told by the economist Harrod in his biography of Keynes, "... logical faculty, his accuracy and his lightning speed of thought made him a thoroughly competent mathematician. He had no specific genius for mathematics; he had to take pains with his work; ... he did not seek out those abstruse regions which are a joy to the heart of the professional mathematician.". (See http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.
It is incredibly naive to say that physical scientists stole all of the easy problems. It is probably more meaningful to say that weaker physical scientists stole all the low hanging fruit. But then there is a clearly defined hierarchy of problems in the physical sciences when it comes to what is important, and that is why Einstein is revered but many others are not.
We should not be surprised at all if Nate Silver misses the results at times. After all, the domains he deals with are probably not governed by laws even in a statistical sense (that does not mean statistical analysis has no role to play).
In the old days when I took my econometrics course, OLS and all that stuff was disposed off rather quickly and we were told to concentrate on building a structural model of the problem domain, study it, derive from it the reduced form model and so on. I think those days are gone, and these days most (not all) feel quite satisfied with a single equation model. The concept of a rich model to represent mathematically some aspect of nature, the hallmark of physical sciences borrowed in to the social sciences, has just abut disappeared. In the physical sciences, usually you start with a system of equations (differential/difference) and ultimately come up with a solution that is very easy to comprehend. In accounting we start with an equation and end up with a cartload of statistical mumbo jumbo.
In the physical sciences there is a clear distinction made between those who model and those who test them. Theoretical physicists work with mathematical models, but experimental physicists just verify them in nature. Nevertheless, the two collaborate in rather peculiar ways so that the science can advance (I have given instances of this in earlier postings). This enables theoreticians to hypothesize things that have not even been shown to exist. Bosons were conjectured by Satyen Bose with Einstein in the 1920s, but experiments to confirm their existence is now becoming possible 40 years after the death of Bose.
In accounting, on the other hand, we all pretend to do both with the result that we have perverse incentives to claim advances in both. We do not recognize that the skills needed for theoretical and empirical/experimental research are very different and rarely does one come across a person who can do justice to both.
Most sciences see this dichotomy between theoretical and experimental/empirical aspects of research but collaborate in ways that help the domain. When I switched to Computing towards the tail end of my career I found the way these two collaborate absolutely fascinating. I wish there was more of that in accounting.
Incidentally Keynes was a mathematical tripos student, and graduated twelfth wrangler at Cambridge. His thesis was in mathematics (Treatise on Probability, a classic). )Unfortunately, he lacked the genius in mathematics and so chose Economics as told by the economist Harrod in his biography of Keynes, "... logical faculty, his accuracy and his lightning speed of thought made him a thoroughly competent mathematician. He had no specific genius for mathematics; he had to take pains with his work; ... he did not seek out those abstruse regions which are a joy to the heart of the professional mathematician.". (See http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.
No comments:
Post a Comment