 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
A quick new page - to try and keep useful stuff that seems unwelcome in the main econometrics article. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
- Is this a criticism of statistical methods not suited for the study of economic data?. If not, then I think it should be narrowed down. Right now, it seems to push a Point of View (POV). It seems as awkard as a "Criticism of Statistics" page, really.--Forich (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- The article was started as a result of some difficulties on the econometrics page. Some editors wanting to include lots of criticisms of econometrics there and others not wanting or respecting them. This page seems to me useful in that it allows us to include lots of perhaps more obscure stuff without giving it undue weight by a big section on the main econometrics page. What is the point of view you feel is being pushed and is there something that could be added to counter that? (Msrasnw (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC))
- Interesting, but it doesn't make an excuse.
- "include lots of perhaps more obscure stuff without giving it undue weight by a big section on the main econometrics page"
- Knowing that the article is obscure... isn't it just plain wrong? Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, there is really no place for accuracy disrupt. This page to me is more on the criticism of the ease to misuse statistical methods. (Forich just summed that up quite well) --14.198.220.253 (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is not completely accurate. For instance, there are also inherent limitations to the use of frequentist statistics when randomization does not hold (as is often true in econometrics). I have included this point in the Austrian School section. Your point that the ease of misuse is an obvious criticism that does not deserve its own article stands, but it is worthwhile to have an article catalogue the specific misuses in economics. 130.126.255.138 (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting, but it doesn't make an excuse.
- The article was started as a result of some difficulties on the econometrics page. Some editors wanting to include lots of criticisms of econometrics there and others not wanting or respecting them. This page seems to me useful in that it allows us to include lots of perhaps more obscure stuff without giving it undue weight by a big section on the main econometrics page. What is the point of view you feel is being pushed and is there something that could be added to counter that? (Msrasnw (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC))
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Criticisms of econometrics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110204034313/http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2010/Oversight/20july/Solow_Testimony.pdf to http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2010/Oversight/20july/Solow_Testimony.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
How is this entire article not a glaring example of this? Shouldn't this just be in the "criticisms" section of econometrics, for the notable things in here? It's not clear to me why it was split off in the first place.