Reading a classic in IT literature

I am writing an article on the philosophy of economics and how it relates to simulation, so I have found myself reading a bit of historical economics literature. I just got done reading (for the first time) a classic in IT literature, “Let’s take the con out of econometrics,” by Edward E. Leamer (The American Economic Review, 73(1):33-43 (March 1983)). Leamer discusses many problems with the art and practice of econometrics that should lead us to sharply limit our trust in the results and analyses produced by this method.

Yes, that’s what it is about, but it is both the way in which the article is written and the attitude of the author (that comes shining through) that make this article a classic.

Here is one quote (p. 37) in which Leamer takes a shot at the unscrupulousness of the econometrician:

“The econometrician’s shabby art is humorously and disparagingly labelled “data mining,” “fishing,” “grubbing,” “number crunching.” A joke evokes the Inquisition: “If you torture the data long enough, Nature will confess ” (Coase). Another suggests methodological fickleness: “Econometricians, like artists, tend to fall in love with their models” (wag unknown). Or how about: “There are two things you are better off not watching in the making: sausages and econometric estimates.””

This is hardly the formal writing style or detached attitude that is generally expressed within this highly esteemed journal.

He continues:

“This is a sad and decidedly unscientific state of affairs we find ourselves in. Hardly anyone takes data analyses seriously. Or perhaps more accurately, hardly anyone takes anyone else’s data analyses seriously. Like elaborately plumed birds who have long since lost the ability to procreate but not the desire, we preen and strut and display our t-values.”

Leamer goes on to provide many insights about the problems with the approach and even walks the reader through an econometric analysis of a set of data, pointing out difficulties with the inferences that might be drawn from the analysis.

I could go on but I won’t. I highly recommend this article and will probably go back and read it again, soon — for the jokes. It’s not often that something like this gets said about an article in the AER.